Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...

on

  • 3,392 views

Plaintiff(s) Negros vs. President Andrew Johnson and President Rutherford B. Hayes

Plaintiff(s) Negros vs. President Andrew Johnson and President Rutherford B. Hayes

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,392
Views on SlideShare
3,392
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states... Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states... Document Transcript

    • In The United States District Court<br />For the Eastern District of Texas<br />Beaumont Division<br />Louis Charles Hamilton II<br />(Negro African American)<br />Plaintiff<br />And All other African (Negroes)<br />Americans in and for<br />The United States of America<br />Plaintiff(s)<br />Vs. <br />United States of America,<br />Defendant<br />And<br />Vs.<br />President Andrew Johnson,<br />President Rutherford B. Hayes<br />Co-Defendant<br />Complaint and Jury Demand<br />1.<br />Comes now the Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, appearing Pro Se<br />The above name male, a descendant from a past legacy of forced “Slavery and Servitude” wrongfully committed against the Plaintiffs family descendants,<br />2.<br /> Primarily because of being a member of a race that being of (Negro) origin, (now considered politically correct within this time frame) a “Black African American male” within the United States of America<br />And all other (Negroes) Black African Americans in and for the “Entire United States of America,”<br />3.<br /> To include but not limited to “all other fleeing” (Negroes) Black African Americans Plaintiff(s) to other countries abroad, namely “Canada” whom also may be entitled to the same cause(s) now being filed and complained of before the above entitled Honorable Court;<br />4.<br /> With other said (Negroes) Blacks African Americans Plaintiff(s) having “legal proof” in providing for said compensatory support made in all provisions claims made herein for a “suffered Heritage being that of “Negroes African American” fleeing from the “United States of America” whom also may being justly entitled to the provisions respectfully sought herein.<br />5.<br />For each described said Plaintiff(s) “rightful full relief” for all of the ungodly, wrongful, extreme and outrageous, conducts committed by all described Defendants collectively herein,<br /> Being both the “direct and indirect” causes for all of the described above-mention Plaintiff(s) causes for having to wrongfully suffered, endured in the casualty of<br />“Plaintiffs major Losses” of “past family descendants due to “wrongful deaths” in a manner involving violence’s of murder, hanging(s),<br />6.<br />With further cruel actions involving hostile intimidations, threats, beatings & whippings, and other forms of direct and indirect cause of wrongful force at the hands of the said Defendant(s) described herein to force Plaintiffs family descendants into the wrongful usage for monetary gain through “slavery and servitude”.<br />To include but not limited to other causes of direct wrongful “physical and mental” factors from enslavements, being that primarily Plaintiffs was a slave with a result in losses in a normal life,<br />7.<br />Losses in peaceful freedom in everyday choice, losses in dignity in the pursuit of equal liberty as a Negro American within the United States of America.<br />All of which said peaceful rights in choice, peace, and freedom having already been established for all other first class citizens within the United States of America under the Constitution instituted for all first class citizens.<br />Denied living with dignity, respect, and freedom as other national origins of classes enjoyed and continue to enjoy within the United States of America as present”,<br /> 8.<br />With Defendant(s) The United States of America “systematic” continual as of this undersign date exercise continual wrongful conduct of “pattern(s) and practices” in the rightful returning of the Plaintiff peaceful “Heritage that of (Negroes) to a rightful official standing place as that of a first class citizens within the United States of America<br />9.<br />And all of the Plaintiff's entire Family descendants both past and present with all other Negroes similarly the same promptly obtain just monetary compensation being finally, fully and completely render to all of the Plaintiff(s) for all of the causes thereof both past and present.<br />And for cause the Plaintiff will show the following:<br />10.<br />Factual background<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Slavery in some form or another existed in America. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain and will show the Honorable Court that the English Colonies did establish two forms of slavery that were legal: Indentured Servitude (where an individual was put in bondage to pay a debt such as the cost of transport to the new world and at the end of the agreed term the individual was freed from bondage). <br />11.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Indentured Servants were treated as badly as chattel slaves while in the period of bondage per their contract.<br />Indentured Servants system of bondage was not based on race and it appears originally among the lower classes that Indentured Servants belonged to all racial groups were represented and shared in common bondage together.<br />12.<br />It also was apparent that with the growth of Mulattoes (bi-racial off spring) that the races mixed with no animosity. <br />Indentured Servants were oftentimes recruited much the same way for both black and white through a series of kidnappings. <br />White Indentured Servants were often kidnapped off the streets of London by Sea Captains who took them to the colonies where they were sold for indentured services.<br /> Blacks were kidnapped from their villages and sold at first as indentured servants in the English Colonies.<br /> 13.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert to the Honorable Court that during the early 1700's due to economic considerations a transition concerning Indentured and Chattel Slavery took place. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that with the growth of Plantations, a form of commercial farming that required labor intensive work, the plantation owners required cheap labor and through political pressure defined and established “Chattel Slavery.”<br />14.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that some of the laws were enacted were due to slave rebellions (with both black and white indentured servants participating) which caused the colonies to write a more definitive series of law defining slavery and removing of rights previously held.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that laws were enacted that made interracial marriage illegal for the dubious purpose of driving a wedge between the races who previously worked together in harmony and to establish a racial bias setting among poor whites.<br />15.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the laws established that “Negroes” a/k/a Black African Americans were fully identified as slaves and property herein referred to as “Chattel”.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully asserts that the Slave codes were put into force creating the brutal conditions of “Chattel Slavery”.<br />With the growth of “Chattel Slavery” came the introduction of “race based slavery” and the development a racist caste system which were promoted primarily by the aristocratic elements of society.<br />16.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that for the Aristocrat (White) class the introduction of a racial components to the slavery provided the advantage that (Negroes) A/K/A Black Africans could be readily identified and could not escape and blend into the surrounding populations as easily as white who could escape and blend into white communities and Indian indentured servants who could escape and blend into tribes nearby.<br />17.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that (Negroes) Blacks had nowhere to escape, no authority to appeal to (especially after the laws were changed), and what little rights they had eroded.<br />18.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that with the evolution of “Chattel Slavery” (Negroes) Black Africans went from a system that had some rights and legal recourse to a system that virtually stripped them of all rights.<br />19.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and will show the Honorable Court that Economics was the driving force for the change from Indentured Servants to Chattel Slavery. <br />Furthermore, Economics also played a role in the change of laws dealing with slavery between Northern Colonies and later the Northern States.<br />20.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the crops grown in the North and industrialization did not require large labor gangs that the plantations required in the South.<br />21. <br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that slavery was abolished in the Northern Colonies/States between the years of 1774 through 1804(Vermont 1777, Pennsylvania 1780, Massachusetts 1780, New Hampshire 1783, Connecticut 1784, Rhodes Island 1784, New York 1799 and New Jersey 1804).<br />22.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the development of differing forms of economies between the north and the south was to set the stage for interregional strife even from the very birth of the nation.<br /> 23.<br />The Declaration of Independence and Constitution had problems with Slavery.<br />24.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Assert and will show the Honorable Court that the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson was changed by the Continental Congress removing the last grievance which condemned the King for allowing slavery and Slave trade to continue and offering freedom for slaves who would fight for the crown.<br />25.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintains and will show the Honorable Court that the above mentioned grievance was removed to avoid a lengthy debate on slavery and to assure that the Defendants (The United States of America) Southern Colonies/States join in the War for Independence efforts.<br />26.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the compromises with Southern Colonies and later Defendants (States) that permitted slavery to continue did perpetuate and allowed the Killing, abuse, beatings, and rape of the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negroes) Black African Americans past descendants by Rich White Southern Plantation owners.<br />27.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain the that the language of the Declaration of Independence “that all men were created equal” meant just that and was perverted by White Southern Politicians with the removal of the last grievance.<br />28.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that when the Articles of Confederation were deemed ineffective and a new Constitution was considered that the Southern Politicians did everything in their power to maintain their vile and “Peculiar System”.<br />29.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Founding Fathers in 1789 again compromised with the Southern White Plantation Owners by adding the 3/5 Section that deals with the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person for tax and Representative allocations to the House of Representatives.<br />30.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Founding Fathers did not use the term slave when writing the Constitution and did consider the (Negroes) Black African-Americans to be persons and not property.<br />31.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that the founding fathers (specifically the delegates to the Constitutional Convention also known as the Framers of the Constitution) purposely did not use the term slave in the clause dealing with Fugitive Slaves but again referring to slaves as Persons.<br />32.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the compromises made with the Rich White Southern Plantation Owners granted Southern Defendants more political power to maintain and perpetuate the chattel slave system along with the murder, beatings, rapes, and non consensual medical experimentations.<br />33.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) avers that the Defendants (the United States of America) did from its very conception conspire to enslave a whole race namely the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negroes) Black African-Americans by making compromises with the Rich Southern White Plantation owner.<br />34.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant (The United States of America) by passing the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 which provided for a method of returning escaped slaves and even more vehemently in the Fugitive Law of 1850 which made “good citizens” a/k/a Defendants herein criminals when assisting “escaped slaves” thus supporting the vile institution of chattel slavery and it's abuses.<br />35.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the 1850 Fugitive Law made it possible for Freemen (Negroes) Black African-Americans to be kidnapped and taken to the South to be sold into slavery.<br />36.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 even encouraged the kidnapping of Free (Negroes)Black African-Americans by Paying Commissioners Judges more for the return of escaped slaves than the releasing them, and it made it illegal for Northern States to use a jury to determine the status of the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negro) Black African-American.<br />37.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that in response to the reign of terror in the North by Federal Marshals seeking to enforce the dubious law it is estimated that Between 100,000 and 200,000 (Negro) Black African-Americans fled the United States of America to Canada for freedom that the “Land of the Free” would not afford them.<br />38.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Southern politician were more concerned about maintaining slavery that they were willing to use the Federal Government against other states to protect the Chattel Slavery even at the expense of “States Rights.<br />39.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that the Fugitive Act of 1850 made slavery a nationally sanctioned institution;<br /> Forcing many law abiding (Defendants) to resist the Fugitive Save Law of 1850 making many Northerners willing to participate in the Underground Railroad assisting (Negro) Black African-American to escape to Canada and Mexico with the majority going to Canada.<br />40.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Underground Railroad was a justifiable response against the compromises made to appease the South.<br />41.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furthermore assert and will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) did endorse, promote, and participate in preserving “Chattel Slavery” by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and by using tax payer monies to pay Commissioners and Marshals to return to the South runaway slaves (some who were never slaves).<br />42.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Southern Slave Holders were more interested in preserving chattel slavery than the Union.<br />43.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) avow that the Election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 threatened the “Slaveocracy” or the political power and control exerted on the Defendant (The United States of America) by the Southern White Slave Owners.<br />44.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the political compromises made for the benefit of the Southern White Slave Holder to maintain the Defendant (The United States of America) together resulted in a costly war and loss of life.<br />45.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and will show the Honorable Court that while the excessive greed and demand for cheap labor (Chattel Slavery) in the South benefited the Defendant (The United States of America) by production of raw materials for export and domestic use the Northern States where manufacturing existed profited from the production of cheaper raw materials from the South because of Chattel Slavery.<br />46.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendants (The United States of America) specifically the North began to abolish slavery when the Lucrative Slave Trade and Triangle was made illegal by the Constitution of the United States of America and the act of Congress ending the slave trade as specified by the time limit set by the Constitution of the United States for slave trade. <br />47.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the election of 1860 with the political division of the Defendants (the United States of America) the electorate elected Abraham Lincoln President not by popular vote but by the Electoral College.<br />48.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the electorate was split on what to do with “Chattel Slavery” with successes in populous anti-slavery North Eastern states whom had more electoral votes assured that Abraham Lincoln won.<br />49.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Rich White Pro Slave politicians took advantage the heated political environment of the 1860 election and inflamed their Southern constituencies to break up the Union which resulted in a bloody war.<br />50.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that one of the solutions for ending “Chattel Slavery” was to reimburse the Slave Holders to free their slaves which was absurd paying the perpetrators of slavery instead of the victims of a hideous, repulsive, and horrific abuse of human beings namely Plaintiff and Plaintiff descendants (Negro) African-Americans.<br />51.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that at no time throughout and after the travail of “Chattel Slavery” with its abuses of “basic human rights” and its inhumane inflicted upon the slaves --- (Plaintiff and Plaintiff's)<br />Including but not limited to murder, rapes, and beatings to force the slave Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African Americans to work harder and increase production for the rich white Slave Holder Defendants and all those who benefited from their labors namely Defendants (The United States of America), <br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff's assert before the Honorable Court there never, never ever was even a neither meaningful public apology nor monetary compensation made to the slaves (Plaintiff and Plaintiff's) herein.<br />52<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and aver that on or about April 14th, 1865 an insidious pernicious conspiracy came to fruition for.<br />53.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that on or about April 14th, 1865 the date of the Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln,<br />The Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) conspires for personal gain joined in a conspiracy to Assassinate and murder the President of the United States.<br />President Abraham Lincoln, the son of abolitionists threatens the Defendant's (The United States of America) free labor industry NAMELY (Slavery),<br />This prompted many Defendants (The United States of America) “Southern States” to secede, or leave the union, launching the “Civil War” in an effort to keep the all of the Defendants (The United States of America) States together.<br />(President Abe Lincoln) threaten to free the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans from those Defendant (The United States of America) “ States” who had seceded if they did not return to the Defendants (The United States of America) Union, when had they refused, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.<br />Those states not covered by the proclamation included Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware and Tennessee. New Orleans and 13 Parishes in Louisiana were also exempt. These states had either, never declared secession, were in the process of return to the Union or were already under federal control.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Slavery of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) was never really about racism it was about revenue. Furthermore racism was the vehicle that allowed it to exist and Jim Crow, the unjust legal system that protected the oppression that followed of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) serving to keep the Defendant (The United States of America) to keep labor costs low under this culture of Jim Crow Law.<br />Moreover, the end of slavery threatened to cripple the South, prompting them to seek other means of replacing the free labor offered by slaves. Prisons became the answer. When the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans were accused by Whites of any crime, they were often sent to labor farms or prisons for long periods, where they would pick cotton, work in mines or help build railroads. Prisoners had little or no rights and treatment was as cruel as slavery.<br /> This caused the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans to fear any interaction that would bring them in contact with the legal system, making them more compliant to the White man's rule. However, the interference of federal authorities made it harder for the Defendant's (The United States of America) White Southerners to regain control of Blacks and they lobbied to have federal control removed from the South.<br />54.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that The Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) did have more than a passing acquaintance with co-conspirators who killed President Abraham Lincoln.<br />And The Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) having had numerous encounters when he was the Military Governor, when John Wilkes Booth and Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) kept sisters as mistresses. <br />55.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Vice President had been shunned by the President (Lincoln) after appearing at the Inauguration inebriated.<br />56.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will aver that while Andrew Johnson was Military Governor did meet John Wilkes Booth at the Opening of the Wood's Theater on about February 1864.<br />57.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that “John Wilkes Booth” approximately seven hours before shooting the president, Booth dropped by the Washington hotel which was Co-Defendant (Vice-President Andrew Johnson's) residence.<br />58.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furthermore assert that upon learning from the desk clerk that neither Andrew Johnson nor his private secretary, William A. Browning, was in the hotel, Booth wrote the following note: "Don't wish to disturb you Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth."<br />59.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that William A. Browning Co-Defendant (Vice President's Andrew Johnson) Private Secretary testified before the military court that he found the note in his mailing box later that afternoon.<br />60.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the note left by John Wilkes Booth was common knowledge and that the assassinated President's wife wrote about it to her friend.<br />61.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain and will show the Honorable Court that Mary Todd Lincoln felt Co-Defendant Andrew Johnson was involved. On March 15, 1866 she wrote to her friend, Sally Oren: …. that, that miserable inebriate, (Johnson), had cognizance of my husband' death--- why was that card Booth's, found in his box.<br />62.<br />Mary Todd Lincoln was not the only contemporary who questioned whether Johnson had a role in the Lincoln assassination several Congress Members questioned Vice President Johnson's role.<br />63.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiffs assert that John Wilkes Booth was a noted actor, Confederate sympathizer and avowed White Supremacist Racist who had planned initially to kidnap President Lincoln, hoping to exchange him for Confederate prisoners.<br />64.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Plans were made to kidnap President Lincoln in March 1865 when Lincoln was scheduled to attend a function at a Washington Hospital and when that did not happen Booth's plan had to be placed on hold.<br />65.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that on or about April 11, 1865 upon hearing that Lincoln mentioned that some Plaintiff and Plaintiff descendants (Negroes) Black African-Americans should be allowed to vote John Wilkes Booth changed his kidnapping plan to one of assassination.<br />66.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that President and Mrs. Lincoln attended a performance at Ford’s Theater in Washington on or about April 14th and approximately at 10:00 PM Booth entered the unguarded presidential box, as the guard left his post for a drink at a nearby bar; and shot Lincoln in the back of his head.<br />67.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that after firing the shot Booth while attempting to escape the scene, did get caught on some bunting with draped the Presidential Box and broke his leg.<br />68.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that some of patrons reported hearing (Booth) shouts as he escape the Virginia motto, “Sic simper tyrannies” (thus always to tyrants); others thought they heard, “The South shall live!”<br />69.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that President Lincoln lingered throughout the night and died early the next morning without regaining consciousness.<br />70.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the assassination of (Lincoln) was part of a larger plot, including the killing of Secretary of State William H. Seward, and General Ulysses S. Grant.<br />71.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Secretary of State (Seward) was attacked at his home and received serious knife wounds, but recovered and continued in office under Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson).<br />72.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Ulysses Grant and his wife were scheduled to attend the performance with the Lincolns, but had a last-minute change of plans.<br />73.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that while Vice-President was on list of targets on that fateful day no attempt was made on Andrew Johnson's life.<br />74.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further maintain that John Wilkes Booth had hoped that the removal of the leading head figures in the United States government would spark a revival of the Confederacy which was on its last legs.<br />75.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that (Booth) escaped and was caught several weeks later hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia and was shot by one of the armed officials while he was fleeing the burning barn, several hours later (Booth) died from his wounds.<br />76.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show that eight persons were arrested as conspirators. All were tried and convicted by a military tribunal. Four were hanged. One died in jail. Three received presidential pardons in 1869.<br />77.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that high Confederate officials namely Jefferson Davis had played a role in planning the assassination.<br />78.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that while President Abraham Lincoln was not always a popular President when alive, even in the North; he did become a martyr and a hero.<br />79.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that many members of Congress also questioned many of the actions of President Johnson suspecting that his actions might have been suspect. While their investigations did not lead to legal action as far as the assassination it did lead to a stormy relationship with the Co Defendant (President Andrew Johnson). So much so that eventually he was impeached under 11 Articles of Impeachment which follow:<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court<br />PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES On Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives<br />    On Monday, February the 24th, 1868, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which the Senate was apprised and arrangements were made for the trial.  On Monday the 2d of March, articles of impeachment were agreed upon by the House of Representatives, and on the 4th they were presented to the Senate by the managers on the part of the House, who were accompanied by the House, the grand inquest of the nation, as a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.  Mr. BINGHAM, chairman of the managers, read the articles as follows:<br />    Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of themselves and all the people of the United States, against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.<br />ARTICLE I.<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States issue and order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such Secretary, and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having been suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, that is to say, on the 12th day of December, in the year last aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate there afterward, on the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and having been refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and said Edwin Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of February, being lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:<br />                          EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br />    SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will start PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES On Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives<br />    On Monday, February minute upon receipt of their communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, paper and other public property now in your custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours,     ANDREW JOHNSON.<br />Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War<br />    Which order was unlawfully issued, and with intent then are there to violate the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867; and, with the further intent contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, the said Edwin M. Stanton being then and there Secretary of War, and being then and there in the due and lawful execution  of the duties of said office, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE II.<br />     That on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did, with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States and the act aforesaid, issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority, in substance as follows, that is to say:<br />                          EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br />    SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.     Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours,   ANDREW JOHNSON<br />To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas ,Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C.<br />    Then and there being no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War:  whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and  was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE III.<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this, that, without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War, ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment so made by Andrew Johnson, of said Lorenzo Thomas is in substance as follows, that is to say:<br />                          EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br />    SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.     Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours,   ANDREW JOHNSON<br />To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C.  <br />ARTICLE IV.<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent by intimidation and threats unlawfully to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there, the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain conspiracies," approved July 31, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high crime in office.<br />ARTICLE V.<br /> prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secret prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under th prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby these laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the s<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and on divers others days and time in said year before the 2d day of March, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons in the House of Representatives unknown, to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office.  <br />ARTICLE VI.<br />     That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United Sates in the Department of War, and then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain conspiracies," approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.<br />ARTICLE VII.<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, in the custody and charge of  Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of said Department, with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE VIII.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, with intent unlawfully to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and while the Senate was then and there in session, there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in writing, in substance as follows, that is to say:<br />                          EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br />    SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.     Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours,   ANDREW JOHNSON<br />To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C.<br />    Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE IX<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22nd day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, duly enacted,  as Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, did bring before  himself, then and there William H. Emory, a Major-General by brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in command of the department of Washington, and the military forces thereof, and did and there, as such Commander-in-Chief, declare to, and instruct said Emory, that part of a law  of the United States, passed March 2, 1867, entitled "An act for making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," especially the second section thereof, which provides, among other things, that "all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President or Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the Army, and, in case of his inability, through the next in rank," was unconstitutional, and  in contravention of the commission of  said Emory, and which said provision of law had been theretofore duly and legally promulgated by general order for the government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce said Emory, in his official capacity as Commander of the department of Washington, to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the Army of the United States, according to the provisions of said act, and with the further intent thereby to enable him, the said Andrew Johnson, to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, and to unlawfully prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then being Secretary for the Department of War, from holding said office and discharging the duties thereof, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE X.<br />    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:<br />    Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, heretofore, to wit:  On the 18th day of August, in  the year of our Lord, 1866, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:     "So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in a common phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and co-extensive with the wound. We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and moving element opposing it. In alluding to that element it shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered the report of the proceedings, I shall make no reference that I do not believe, and the time and the occasion justify.     "We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called or which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of States inevitable.     "We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself."<br />    Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore to wit: On the third day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:     “I will tell you what I did do? I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the Government."<br />*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *<br />   "In conclusion, beside that Congress had taken much pains to poison the constituents against him, what has Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of the States? No: On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it: and because he stood now where he did when the rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor.  Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people."<br />    Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit: On the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:     "Go on, perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans,  perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out "New Orleans." If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source and its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population? the black population? to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which had been organized by the government of the United States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in the convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress.<br />*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *<br />    "So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise.    " I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting, and did arrest for a time, that which was called a "Freedmen’s Bureau" bill. Yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced; I have been slandered; I have been maligned; I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen, here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve Apostles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a Judas."<br />*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *<br />    "Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance? soldiers and citizens? to participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can.     "Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by enemies, nor erased by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me."     Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE XI.<br />    That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and affirm in substance, that the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying the power of the said Thirty-Ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit: On the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, D.C., did, unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension therefore made by the said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War; and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1868, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867. And also to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit: on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />80.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court that Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson), a former slave owner, while accepting the emancipation of the slaves did not accept the idea that the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a (Negroes) Black African-Americans should not have equal rights as white people.<br />81.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did conspire with the Southern White Property Owners (Defendants) to maintain a cheap labor force with limited rights in opposition to the plan for reconstruction being pushed by Congress.<br />To include but not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs will show the Honorable Court factual evidence Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did in fact having (5) personal slaves.<br />82.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was determined to keep Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a (Negroes) Black African-Americans in an impoverished state and under the control of all the white landowners (Defendants).<br />83.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did use his office in a official capacity to deny against the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a (Negroes) Black African-Americans land,<br /> By vetoing legislation that was sent to his desk that granted ex-slaves land and by hindering the Freedmen's Bureau which he tempted to veto but was over ridden by Congress.<br />84.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson in his efforts to deny land to the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a Negroes (Black African-Americans) (Johnson) rescinded Special Field Orders, No 15 also known as “40 acres and A Mule”.<br />85.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that 40,000 freedmen (Negro) Black African-Americans were settled in homes with the promise of government protection and the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) by rescinding the Special Order No. 15 violated a promise and contractual agreement contained in the order.<br />86.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court the actual;<br />Forty Acres and a MuleIn the Field, Savannah, Georgia, January 16th, 1865.Special Field Orders, No. 15.The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the Negroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, St. Augustine and Jacksonville, the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations -- but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress. By the laws of war, and orders of the President of the United States, the Negro is free and must be dealt with as such. He cannot be subjected to conscription or forced military service, save by the written orders of the highest military authority of the Department, under such regulations as the President or Congress may prescribe.Domestic servants, blacksmiths, carpenters and other mechanics, will be free to select their own work and residence, but the young and able-bodied Negroes must be encouraged to enlist as soldiers in the service of the United States, to contribute their share towards maintaining their own freedom, and securing their rights as citizens of the United States.Negroes so enlisted will be organized into companies, battalions and regiments, under the orders of the United States military authorities, and will be paid, fed and clothed according to law. The bounties paid on enlistment may, with the consent of the recruit, go to assist his family and settlement in procuring agricultural implements, seed, tools, boots, clothing, and other articles necessary for their livelihood.Whenever three respectable Negroes, heads of families, shall desire to settle on land, and shall have selected for that purpose an island or a locality clearly defined, within the limits above designated, the Inspector of Settlements and Plantations will himself, or by such subordinate officer as he may appoint, give them a license to settle such island or district, and afford them such assistance as he can to enable them to establish a peaceable agricultural settlement. The three parties named will subdivide the land, under the supervision of the Inspector, among themselves and such others as may choose to settle near them, so that each family shall have a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel, with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection, until such time as they can protect themselves, or until Congress shall regulate their title. The Quartermaster may, on the requisition of the Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, place at the disposal of the Inspector, one or more of the captured steamers, to ply between the settlements and one or more of the commercial points heretofore named in orders, to afford the settlers the opportunity to supply their necessary wants, and to sell the products of their land and labor.Whenever a Negro has enlisted in the military service of the United States, he may locate his family in any one of the settlements at pleasure, and acquire a homestead, and all other rights and privileges of a settler, as though present in person. In like manner, Negroes may settle their families and engage on board the gunboats, or in fishing, or in the navigation of the inland waters, without losing any claim to land or other advantages derived from this system. But no one, unless an actual settler as above defined, or unless absent on Government service, will be entitled to claim any right to land or property in any settlement by virtue of these orders.In order to carry out this system of settlement, a general officer will be detailed as Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, whose duty it shall be to visit the settlements, to regulate their police and general management, and who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing, giving as near as possible the description of boundaries; and who shall adjust all claims or conflicts that may arise under the same, subject to the like approval, treating such titles altogether as possessory. The same general officer will also be charged with the enlistment and organization of the Negro recruits, and protecting their interests while absent from their settlements; and will be governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the War Department for such purposes.Brigadier General R. Saxton is hereby appointed Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, and will at once enter on the performance of his duties. No change is intended or desired in the settlement now on Beaufort [Port Royal] Island, nor will any rights to property heretofore acquired be affected thereby.By Order of Major General W. T. ShermanSpecial Field Orders, No. 15, Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, 16 Jan. 1865. Orders & Circulars, ser. 44, Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94, National Archives. <br />87.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) by granting general Pardon to Ex-Confederates and Presidential Pardon for those who had over restoration of their properties did undermine programs designed to help establish (Negro) Black African-Americans yeoman farmers who would be self-sufficient and supporting by removing the availability of land in the South.<br />88.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that much of the land available for Homesteads after the return of properties to Ex-Confederates was of poor quality or required money to develop which the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) did not have.<br />89.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Southern Homestead Acts due to gross mismanagement and local corruption by the Defendants (The United States of America) failed to achieve it's purpose of settling displaced loyal whites to the Union during the war and freed slaves lands.<br />90.<br />Plaintiff further assert respectfully that Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was exposed to these racist attitudes at an early age,<br />Further the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was never able to shake them off.<br />91<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) demonstrated a Pro-Slavery and a White Supremacist pattern throughout his political career when he supported as a mayor a new state constitution which had anti-Negro (Black African-American) provisions.<br />92.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) while President consistently used White Supremacist Language while vetoing bills especially when referring to his adversaries in Congress.<br /> 93.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the following quote is an example of Andrew Johnson using race when vetoing a bill.<br /> “What in the opinion of Congress is necessary to make the constitution of a state ‘loyal and republican’?”<br /> The original act answers the question. It is universal Negro suffrage.”<br />94.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the court that the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War was a failure and much of the blame for the failure was the struggle between the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) and the (Defendant) Republican controlled Congress.<br />95.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that much of the conflict between the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) and Congress centered around the President's Plan of Reconstruction which had no provisions for protecting or helping (Negroes) Black African-Americans to integrate into society as free men.<br />96.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) while Congress was in recess appointed Pro-slavery Provisional Governors who organized “Lily White” governments.<br />97.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that these provisional state governments (Defendants) immediately set about writing racist segregationist laws known as Black Codes between the years of 1865 and 1866.<br />98.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that in 1865 and 1866 these governments enacted the Black Codes which indicated that the South intended to reestablish slavery under a different name.<br />99.<br /> The codes restricted the rights of freedmen under vagrancy and apprenticeship laws. South Caroline forbade freedmen to follow any occupation except farming and menial service and required a special license to do other work.<br />100.<br /> The legislature also gave “masters” the right to whip “servants” under eighteen years of age. <br />In other (Defendants) states Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Blacks could be punished for “insulting gestures,” “seditious speeches” and the “crime of walking off a job. <br />(Negro) Blacks could not preach in one state without police permission.<br />102.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that throughout the South laws like Mississippi Law enacted late in November 1865 required (Negroes) Blacks African-Americans to have jobs before the second Monday in January.<br />Furthermore, those who were declared to be unemployed were declared vagrant and penalized by being put in labor camps or assigned to work for their former Plantation Owners.<br />103.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and maintain that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) by establishing the above mentioned Provisional State Governments as described in paragraph (96) above Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did work in collusion with said Provisional State Governments (Defendants) to assure cheap labor for the rebuilding of the damaged plantations and infrastructure.<br />104.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did willfully through his version of Reconstruction did plan to establish second class citizenship for the (Negro) Black African-American.<br />105.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show that Congress (Defendant) did attempt to remedy the abuses inflicted upon (Negro) Black African-Americans by not seating Senators or Representatives elected by those governments (Defendants).<br />106.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Congress established their own reconstruction plans which included the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which included the vote.<br />107.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that military provisional districts were created to protect (Negroes) Black African-Americans from extremist white supremacists and local white officials of the Defendants (The United States of America).<br />108.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that occupational forces were necessary to maintain peace in the volatile south as race riots did occur in places like New Orleans. <br />109.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that many Southern (whites) fearing that their political and social dominance was threatened,<br />So the (Whites) turned to numerous illegal direct means to prevent blacks from gaining equality.<br />110.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Violence against (Negroes) blacks became more and more frequent.<br /> In 1870 increasing disorder led to the passage of an Enforcement Act severely punishing those who attempted to deprive the black freedmen of their civil rights.<br />111.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert Black Codes were laws passed by Southern state legislatures immediately after the Civil War that defined and regulated the legal status of the emancipated slaves.<br /> The laws were so discriminatory and restrictive that they convinced many Northerners that the federal government needed to take an active role in establishing and protecting black civil rights.<br />112.<br />The Black Code did recognize certain minimal rights of the freed population, mainly the right to acquire and hold and property, enter into legal marriages, make contracts, and sue and be sued. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that at the same time, however, the codes relegated blacks to a separate and inferior legal status. <br />113.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks could not vote, hold public office, serve on juries, own firearms, enlist in the military, or testify in court cases involving whites. <br />Many of the codes also placed restrictions on the right of blacks to assemble in public meetings and move about freely.<br />114.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that what particularly aroused Northern (Defendants) anger were sweeping labor provisions that seemed nothing less than a disguised form of slavery. <br />Vagrancy was defined in such a way as to require all blacks to give proof of gainful employment, usually in the form of an annual labor contract on a neighboring plantation.<br />To include but not limited to Local judges (all of whom were white) had the power to fine and arrest blacks without such a contract and hire them out to local planters if they could not pay the fine.<br />115.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further respectfully assert Apprenticeship laws gave local white courts complete authority to determine whether black parents were providing adequate support for their children. <br />The courts bound over black children as apprentices, regardless of the parents' wishes, to local planters who were to serves as their guardians. This practice was especially widespread in the Upper South, where in come counties, as many as one-quarter of black children were bound over to their parents' former owners as cheap laborers.<br />116.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Southern whites accepted the legal end of slavery, but most of them regarded the very idea of civil equality between the races as absurd and dangerous.<br /> They also had little faith in their ability or willingness of the freed Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) blacks African-Americans to work without coercive legal controls forcing them to do so.<br /> By giving legal expression to these attitudes, the Black Codes confirmed the worst of Northern fears regarding the refusal of the Post-war South to take any meaningful step toward racial justice.<br />117.<br />The Freedman's Bureau and the Army suspended enforcement of the most blatantly discriminatory features of the Black Codes. Meanwhile, the Republican majority in Congress had every reason to conclude that the federal government had to take additional steps to protect the legal rights of freed slaves.<br />118.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court, Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s.<br />119.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws.<br />It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were relegated to the status of second class citizens.<br />120.<br />Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-Black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that Whites were the Chosen people, Blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation.<br />121.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level,<br /> Entertainment in the belief that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to Whites.<br />122.<br />Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the White race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to Blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-Black stereotypes.<br />123.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert with strong condemnation that Even children's games” portrayed Blacks as inferior beings major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of Blacks.<br />124.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert with further strong condemnation that The Jim Crow system was undergirded by the following beliefs or rationalizations:<br />Whites were superior to Blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior;<br />Sexual relations between Blacks and Whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America;<br /> Treating Blacks as equals would encourage interracial sexual unions;<br /> Any activity which suggested social equality encouraged interracial sexual relations; if necessary, violence must be used to keep Blacks at the bottom of the racial hierarchy.<br />125.<br />The “Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court the following Jim Crow laws and etiquette norms show how inclusive and pervasive these norms were:<br />A Black male could not offer his hand (to shake hands) with a White male because it implied being socially equal. Obviously, a Black male could not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a White woman, because he risked being accused of rape.<br />Blacks and Whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, Whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them.<br />Under no circumstance was a Black male to offer to light the cigarette of a White female -- that gesture implied intimacy.<br />Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended Whites.<br />Jim Crow etiquette prescribed that Blacks were introduced to Whites, never Whites to Blacks. For example: "Mr. Peters (the White person), this is Charlie (the Black person), that I spoke to you about."<br />Whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to Blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma'am. Instead, Blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to Whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.<br />If a Black person rode in a car driven by a White person, the Black person sat in the back seat, or the back of a truck.<br />White motorists had the right-of-way at all intersections. Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).<br />Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).<br />Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).<br />Buses. All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).<br />Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a Negroes (South Carolina).<br />Education. The schools for white children and the schools for Negroes children shall be conducted separately (Florida).<br />Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).<br />Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).<br />Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).<br />Nurses. No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which Negroes men are placed (Alabama).<br />Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negroes convicts (Mississippi).<br />Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).<br />Teaching. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined... (Oklahoma).<br />Wine and Beer. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time<br />126.<br />To include but not limited to these simple rules that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were supposed to observe in conversing with Whites:<br />Never assert or even intimate that a White person is lying.<br />Never impute dishonorable intentions to a White person.<br />Never suggest that a White person is from an inferior class.<br />Never lay claim to, or overly demonstrate, superior knowledge or intelligence.<br />Never curse a White person.<br />Never laugh derisively at a White person.<br />Never comment upon the appearance of a White female.<br />127.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert Jim Crow etiquette operated in conjunction with Jim Crow laws (black codes). When most people think of Jim Crow they think of laws (not the Jim Crow etiquette) which excluded Blacks from public transport and facilities, juries, jobs, and neighborhoods.<br />128.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution had granted Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the same legal protections as the Defendant (The United States of America) “Whites”.<br />In a compromise aimed at keeping Republicans in power, Rutherford B. Hayes was elected as the Defendant's (The United States of America) acting President. <br />During his campaign before office, he (Hayes) promised to end Reconstruction and did so in the compromise of 1877 which effectively meant the removal of occupational Federal Forces to protect the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s). <br />This ushered in the Jim Crow Years, which instituted separate but equal and other laws at keeping the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans in their place.<br />The result of returning the Defendants (The United States of America) Southern States to home rule was the abandoning of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans<br /> and Republicans into the hands of the “loving hands of the Ku Klux Klan already established by the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) herein. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans were abandoned by the Defendants (The United States of America) Federal Government by wrongful actions and acts of Co-Defendant (President Hayes) orders for monetary greed of restoring “free labor” reasoning and this stated destitution of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) rights, will and dignity linger until 1957 when the next bill was written protecting the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) some (70) years later.<br /> After 1877, and the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, Southern and Border states Defendants (The United States of America) began restricting the liberties of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks.<br />And Unfortunately for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the Supreme Court helped undermine the Constitutional protections of Blacks with the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, which legitimized Jim Crow laws and the Jim Crow way of life.<br />129.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) In 1890, Louisiana passed the "Separate Car Law," which purported to aid passenger comfort by creating "equal but separate" cars for Blacks and Whites. This was a ruse. No public accommodations, including railway travel, provided Blacks with equal facilities.<br />130.<br />The Louisiana law made it illegal for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) to sit in coach seats reserved for Whites, and Whites could not sit in seats reserved for Blacks.<br />In 1891, a group of Blacks decided to test the Jim Crow law. They had Homer A. Plessy, who was seven-eights White and one-eighth Black (therefore, Black), sit in the White-only railroad coach.<br />131.<br />He was arrested. Plessy's lawyer argued that Louisiana did not have the right to label one citizen as White and another Black for the purposes of restricting their rights and privileges.<br /> In Plessy, the Supreme Court stated that so long as state governments provided legal process and legal freedoms for Blacks, equal to those of Whites, they could maintain separate institutions to facilitate these rights.<br />The Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld the Louisiana law, declaring that racial separation did not necessarily mean an abrogation of equality. In practice, Plessy represented the legitimization of two societies: one White, and advantaged; the other, Black, disadvantaged and despised.<br />132.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were denied the right to vote by grandfather clauses (laws that restricted the right to vote to people whose ancestors had voted before the Civil War), poll taxes (fees charged to poor Blacks), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, “only Whites” could be Democrats), and literacy tests ("Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America's history").<br /> Plessy sent this message to southern and border states (Defendants): Discrimination against Blacks is acceptable.<br />133.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that Jim Crow states(Defendants) passed statutes severely regulating social interactions between the races.<br /> Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities.<br />There were separate hospitals for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and Whites, separate prisons, separate public and private schools, separate churches, separate cemeteries, separate public restrooms, and separate public accommodations.<br />134.<br />In most instances, the The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) facilities were grossly inferior -- generally, older, less-well-kept. In other cases, there were no Black facilities -- no Colored public restroom, no public beach, no place to sit or eat.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that Plessy gave Jim Crow states (Defendants) a legal way to ignore their constitutional obligations to their Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) citizens.<br />135.<br />Jim Crow laws touched every aspect of everyday life. For example, in 1935, Oklahoma prohibited Blacks and Whites from boating together. Boating implied social equality.<br />136.<br /> In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for Blacks and Whites.<br />137.<br /> In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for Blacks and Whites to play checkers or dominoes together.<br />138.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws:<br />Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).<br />Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).<br />Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).<br />Buses. All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).<br />Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a Negro (South Carolina).<br />Education. The schools for white children and the schools for Negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida).<br />Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).<br />Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).<br />Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).<br />Nurses. No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which Negro men are placed (Alabama).<br />Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negro convicts (Mississippi).<br />Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).<br />Teaching. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined... (Oklahoma).<br />Wine and Beer. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time (Georgia).<br />139.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the “Jim Crow laws” and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the White water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives.<br />140.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Whites could physically beat Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) with impunity.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-White: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials.<br />Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control. The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were lynchings.<br />141.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs.<br />Between 1882, when the first reliable data were collected, and 1968, when lynchings had become rare, there were 4,730 known lynchings, including 3,440 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) men and women.<br />Most of the victims of Lynch-Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered.<br />142.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that In the mid-1800s, Whites constituted the majority of victims (and perpetrators); however, by the period of Radical Reconstruction, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) became the most frequent lynching victims.<br />This is an early indication that lynching was used as an intimidation tool to keep Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s), in this case the newly-freedmen, "in their places."<br />143.<br />The great majority of lynchings occurred in southern and border states of the (Defendants), where the resentment against Blacks ran deepest.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance in their respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that "The southern states (Defendants) account for nine-tenths of the lynchings.<br />More than two thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South."<br />144.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Many Whites claimed that although lynchings were distasteful, the (White-only) felt this were necessary supplements to the criminal justice system because Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were prone to violent crimes, especially the rapes of White women.<br /> nearly a century of lynchings especially for accusation rapes of (White women) approximately one-third of all the dead Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s) victims were falsely accused.<br />145.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance in their respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Under Jim Crow any and all sexual interactions between Black men and White women was illegal, illicit, socially repugnant, and within the Jim Crow definition of rape.<br />Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882 to 1951 were even accused of rape,<br />Lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect White women from Black rapists.<br />146.<br /> by the broad Southern (Defendants) definition of rape to include all sexual relations between Negro men and white women; and by the psychopathic fears of white women in their contacts with Negro men.<br />147.<br />Most Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were lynched for demanding civil rights, violating Jim Crow etiquette or laws, or in the aftermath of race riots.<br />Lynchings were most common in small and middle-sized (Defendants) towns where Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s) often were economic competitors to the local Whites.<br />148.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that (Whites) resented any economic and political gains made by The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />149.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynchers were seldom arrested, and if arrested, rarely convicted.<br />To include but not limited to facts "at least one-half of the lynchings were carried out with police officers participating, and that in nine-tenths of the others the officers either condone or wink at the mob action."<br />150.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynching served many purposes: it was cheap entertainment;<br />It served as a rallying and uniting point for Whites;<br /> it functioned as an ego-massage for low-income, low-status Whites;<br />it was a method of defending White domination and helped stop or retard the fledgling social equality movement.<br />151.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynch mobs directed their hatred against one (sometimes several) Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims.<br />The victim was an example of what happened to a Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) man who tried to vote, or who looked at a White woman, or who tried to get a White man's job.<br />152.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that sometimes the mob was not satisfied to murder a single or several Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims.<br />Instead, in the spirit of pogroms, the (White) mobs went into Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) communities and destroyed additional lives and property.<br />Their immediate goal was to drive out -- through death or expulsion -- all Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />153.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the larger goal was to maintain, at all costs, White supremacy.<br />These pogrom-like actions are often referred to as riots, terrorization, massacre...and “Mass lynching."<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court Interestingly, that these mass lynchings were primarily urban phenomena, whereas the lynching of single Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims was primarily a rural phenomena.<br />154.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that during the summer of 1919, there were race riots in Chicago, Illinois; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; Omaha, Nebraska; and two dozen other (Defendants) cities.<br />155.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court During that year (1919) seventy-seven Negroes were lynched, of whom one was a woman and eleven were soldiers; of these,<br /> Fourteen were publicly burned, eleven of them being burned alive.<br />To include but not limited to facts that during that year (1919) there were race riots large and small in twenty-six American (Defendants) cities including thirty-eight killed in a Chicago riot of August;<br /> from twenty-five to fifty in Phillips County, Arkansas; and six killed in Washington."<br />156.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that riots of 1919 were not the first or last "mass lynchings" of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s), as evidenced by the race riots in Wilmington, North Carolina (1898); Atlanta, Georgia (1906); Springfield, Illinois (1908); East St. Louis, Illinois (1917); Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921); and Detroit, Michigan (1943).<br />157.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that that the riots of the 1900s had the following traits:<br />In each of the race riots, with few exceptions, it was White people that sparked the incident by attacking Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) people.<br />In the majority of the riots, some extraordinary social condition prevailed at the time of the riot: prewar social changes, wartime mobility, post-war adjustment, or economic depression.<br />The majority of the riots occurred during the hot summer months.<br />Rumor played an extremely important role in causing many riots. Rumors of some criminal activity by Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) against Whites perpetuated the actions of the White mobs.<br />The police force, more than any other institution, was invariably involved as a precipitating cause or perpetuating factor in the riots. In almost every one of the riots, the police sided with the attackers, either by actually participating in, or by failing to quell the attack.<br />In almost every instance, the fighting occurred within the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) community.<br />158.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the mass media, especially newspapers often published inflammatory articles about "Black criminals" immediately before the riots;<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks were not only killed, but their homes and businesses were looted, and many who did not flee were left homeless.<br />159.<br /> The goal of the White rioters, as was true of White lynchers of single Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims, was to instill fear and terror into Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) , thereby buttressing White domination.<br />160.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that The Jim Crow hierarchy could not work without violence being used against those on the bottom rung.<br /> "Lynching represented...a way of using fear and terror to check 'dangerous' tendencies in a Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) black community considered to be ineffectively regimented or supervised.<br />161.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that "Lynching” the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) represented a measure of day-to-day control."<br />162.<br />Many Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks resisted the indignities of Jim Crow, and, far too often, they paid for their bravery with their lives.<br />163.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that At the end of the American Civil War radical members of Congress attempted to destroy the white power structure of the Rebel states.<br />164.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff further assert before the Honorable court that The Freeman's Bureau was established by Congress on 3rd March, 1865.<br />165.<br />The bureau was designed to protect the interests of former slaves a/k/a Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) in this action.<br />166.<br />This included helping them to find new employment and to improve educational and health facilities. In the year that followed the bureau spent $17,000,000 establishing 4,000 schools, 100 hospitals and providing homes and food for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) of former slaves.<br />167.Attempts by Congress to extend the powers of the Freemen's Bureau was vetoed by Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson in February, 1866.<br />168.<br />In April 1866, Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson also vetoed the Civil Rights Bill that was designed to protect Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) whom were freed slaves from Southern Black Codes<br />169.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff further assert laws that placed severe restrictions on freed slaves Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) such as prohibiting their right to vote, forbidding them to sit on juries, limiting their right to testify against white men, carrying weapons in public places and working in certain occupations).<br />170.Plaintiff and Plaintiff respectfully will show before the Honorable Court that the election of 1866 increased the number of Radical Republicans in Congress.<br />172.<br /> The following year Congress passed the first Reconstruction Act. The South (Defendants) was now divided into five military districts, each under a major general. New elections were to be held in each state with freed male slaves Plaintiff and Plaintiff being allowed to vote.<br />173.<br /> The act also included an amendment that offered readmission to the Southern states (Defendants) after they had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and guaranteed adult male suffrage.<br />Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson immediately vetoed the bill but Congress re-passed the bill the same day.<br />174.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts that The Ku Klux Klan was one among a number of secret, oath-bound organizations that the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson established in Pulaski, Tennessee, in May, 1866 in collusion with the Southern Plantation Owners, Political Leaders, and Ex-Confederate Military.<br />A year later a general organization of local (Ku Klux Klans) was furthermore established in Nashville in April, 1867.<br />Most of the leaders were former members of the Confederate Army under the direct control of Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson<br />175.<br />Their afterwards said Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson gain controlling power of Office of the President of the United State, from the criminal collusion in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.<br />176.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court while Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson Control the North (Defendants) states through the criminal actions as described herein as acting President.<br />177.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson then furthermore his criminal corruption in the controlling interest of the Southern Defendants (The United States of America) “states” with the secret, oath-bound organizations establishment of the Ku Klux Klan.<br />178.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will further show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson appointing Grand Wizard position to HYPERLINK "http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWforrest.htm" Nathan Forrest, an outstanding former general during the American Civil War.<br />179.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that During the next two years Klansman wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) black Americans and sympathetic whites.<br />To include but not limited to Immigrants, who they blamed for the election of Radical Republicans, were also targets of Killing.<br />180.<br /> Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Between 1868 and 1870 the Ku Klux Klan played an important role in restoring white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia (Defendants) states under the control of Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson. <br />181.Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court at first the main objective of white supremacy organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan under Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson control was to stop Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) black African Americans people from voting.<br />182.<br />After the Defendant(s) (The United States of America) in the South Defendants states where the Ku Klux Klan continued to undermine the power of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) blacks as described fully described herein in against all described Defendants.<br />183.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court In effect, the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson established a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert the Co-Defendant Andrew Johnson purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for the Co-Defendant Andrew Johnson sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern (Defendants) states society.<br />184.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will assert before the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) aimed was to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South (Defendants) states during Reconstruction:<br />And to further destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction of (Defendants) state, reestablish control over of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.<br />185.<br /> The Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson established his organization with a constitution and bylaws, which provides, among other things to wit:<br /> That each Ku Klux Klan member shall furnish himself with a pistol, a Ku Klux Klan gown and a signal instrument.<br />The operations of the Klan are executed in the night and are invariably directed against members of the Republican Party.<br /> Inflicting summary vengeance on the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) colored citizens of these citizens by breaking into their houses at the dead of night,<br />Dragging them from their beds, torturing them in the most inhuman manner, and in many instances murdering."<br />Kill all Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks Political Leadership, along with all of the leadership of churches, and Community groups.<br />186.Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Masked men under the control of Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson shot into houses and burned them, sometimes with the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) occupants still inside.<br />To include but not limited acts to drive successful Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) black farmers off their land.<br />187.<br /> Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson Criminal controlling interest of North and South Carolina Defendant(s) states, in 18 months ending in June 1867, there were 197 murders committed against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and 548 cases of aggravated assault further involved against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) for said control of this Defendants States along."188.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff (s) aver that ghoulish, diabolical, and heinous acts by the medical profession specifically in the name of research were committed against and on Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans persons and has resulting in serious health care deficiencies within the (Negro)Black African Americans Community and continues to contribute to the lack of trust in the medical profession to this very date. <br />189.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff (s) will furthermore asseverate emphatically that the roots of this mistrust stretches all the way back to the Colonial Times where Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) African-Americans were examined by Ship Surgeons who culled the defective and sick (Negroes)Black Africans and with little or no regard to severity tossed them overboard to die.<br />190.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that the practices associated with the “sellers block” where Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans were treated as animals, stripped, poked, prodded and examined by physicians and buyers with little concern for privacy resulted in lowered esteem of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans.<br />191.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Southern physicians considered the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans as subhuman, who were thought to be resistant to heat, less susceptible Malaria, resistant to pain, over sexed, and disposable devaluing the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro)Black African-Americans.<br />192.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintains that a litany of abuse and the macabre practice of using slaves as guinea pigs for experiments without consent, with no concern of the pain inflicted, and total disregard of well being of the slave and later the freed Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American contributed to developed a mistrust of the health care system. <br />193.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Southern Physicians did purchase (Negro) Black African-Americans specifically for medical research.<br />194.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable court that Dr. James Marion Sims, the father of gynecology did purchase eleven slave women with vasicovaginal fistuala to perform experimental surgery.<br />195.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Dr. Sims did not use anesthesia while performing surgeries on the eleven slave women, making cuts on the vaginal area, which is described as a nightmarishly painful.<br />196.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Dr. Sims knew about ether which was in use at the time on white patients but insisted that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s), (Negroes) Black African-Americans did not feel pain the way (Whites) do. The women underwent surgeries for years.<br />197.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will aver and assert respectfully to the Honorable Court that the above mentioned litany of abuse continued beyond the time of bondage and slavery into modern time and even continues to the present with disproportionate number of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans being used in testing programs and medical research due to poverty.<br />198.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) adamantly maintain that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans were unwittingly and without informed consent used in experiments throughout the 1900's and continues through the present.<br />199.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that furthermore, the infamous research study known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was conducted upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-American males purposely denying treatment when an effective treatment was known. <br />200.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the results of the experiment was that the (Negro)Black African-American males in the study experienced excruciating tortuous health conditions and deaths and furthermore they unwittingly passed Syphilis on to their spouses and children. The Study was conducted on or about 1932 through 1972 when it ended.<br />201.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate.<br />202.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asserts the sharecroppers were pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”<br />203.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage.<br />204.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that from the outset the actual benefits were hazy and it took 40 years before someone in the study to report that nothing in the study would find a cure for syphilis or lead to an effective way to stop venereal disease.<br />205.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Assert that by the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis.<br />206.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that to persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.”<br />207.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will vehemently assert that (Negro) Black African-American females were subjugated and coerced in to unnecessary sterilizations without prior knowledge and without full detail of the consequences of said procedures .<br />208.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that in over 150,000 women were sterilized using Defendant (The United States of America) funds exposing a decade of stolen African American fertility and was estimated that 50% of the women were poor and (Negroes)African American.<br />209.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert furthermore that in some cases the procedures were performed not out of medical necessity but merely for medical students to practice the procedures in University Facilities.<br />210.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff assert that the procedure was call the Mississippi Appendectomy (Hysterectomy) being perpetuated on poor most often (Negro) Black African-American without consent.<br />211.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and avow that the Defendant ( United States of America) Government physicians injected “terminal” moribund patients with plutonium and other radio active substances again non-consensually to expand the knowledge of radioactivity in 1945.<br />212.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that between the years 1944 and 1994 the AEC supported more than 2000 experimental projects human subjects and Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) African-Americans were at a higher risk of being subjected to these non-therapeutic experiments.<br />213.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver and assert that the health of the (Negro) Black African-Americans have suffered due to the lack of trust of the medical profession. (Negro) Black African-Americans tend to delay at this current time frame in seeking health care due to the horrendous practices inflicted on (Negro) Black African-Americans<br />214. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain and aver that the Defendants (the United States) did design Chattel Slavery with little regard to the humanity of the slave and did woefully deny slave adequate access to comparable health care. <br />215.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the (Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negro) Black African-American were subjected to barbaric medical practices and experiments which were not considered as a regimen of treatment for white patients.<br /> <br />216.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiffs assert that treatments and life saving procedures were denied to elderly and often less productive slaves who were allowed to die and somewhere murdered and put death to avoid medical costs.<br />217.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that medical decisions were made by Plantation Owners who were concerned with keeping costs down often delaying professional medical attention if at all.<br />218.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the court that this dubious and despicable pattern has occurred throughout the past by design and continues a pattern and practice even at the present time due to high poverty rates within the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American Community.<br />219.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Defendants (the United States) did deny the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans equal education access which did impact the community understanding of health concerns. To wit HIV and AIDS prevention education which lagged behind other racial and ethnic groups.<br />220.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) avow the present health care system continues on the same pattern of the Plantation Mode inflicting double standards of health care the poor and upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)(Negro) Black African-Americans who live in poverty and lack the necessaries of a quality life.<br />221.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asseverate that the defendant (The United States of America) did purposefully deny the Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s)(Negro) Black African-American a culture of education (among other things).<br />222.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Defendants herein (The United States of America) and before them the colonies from which they evolved did enact legislation denying education or even the needed fundamental basic skills of reading being provided by other races other than (Negro).<br />223.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that to educate the Plaintiff family descendants race of (Negroes) and the Plaintiff(s) family's descendants race of (Negroes) in among other things fundamental basic reading skills, among other virtue in education.<br />224.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further will be able to show the Honorable Court that “hefty fines” during this time period in excess of$250 - $500.00 Dollars was imposed on individuals teaching basic reading skills to Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans.<br />225.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiffs will show the Honorable Court that any further recurrence of the offense in teaching basic fundamental skills to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) family's descendants race of (Negroes) resulted in expulsion from the Defendant herein (The United State of America) individual State to other areas away from aiding in the involving of Plaintiff(s) Heritage race of (Negroes) in education.<br />226.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) is quite able to positively show through out History that well after reconstruction of the South , Southerners in their legislation created and passed laws that maintained separate schools for Plaintiff and Plaintiff race of that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans based on the Supreme Court ruling on Plassy v. Ferguson.<br />227.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that separate but equal ruling on the 14th Amendment made it possible for Jim Crow Legislation to expand but the legislations were never intended to achieved equal status.<br />228.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the dire purposes and motive of the legislation not to achieve equality in schools or provide equal education but to maintain a repugnant segregated society.<br />229.<br />To include but not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs assert before the Honorable Court that substandard schools provided the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans contributed to low self-esteem, self-worth that undermined Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) education process.<br />230.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that current prisoner populations numbers making the Defendant (The United States of America) and her Defendant (State Governments) the world leader in incarcerations.<br />Furthermore with more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the Defendant (The United States of America) leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second.<br />231.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that One in nine Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) black African-American men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. For Plaintiff(s) black African-American women ages 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 for white women in the same age group.<br />232.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Reconstruction Policies of the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did create a culture of poverty and an adversarial relationship with law enforcement resulting in higher percentages of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes)Black African-Americans in prison or jail as of December of 2009 close to (600,000) Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were incarcerated in the Defendants (The United States of America) “State and Federal Prisons.<br />233.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that a pattern of differing standards for sentencing has existed for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans since Reconstruction and Jim Crow Laws to this very undersign date.<br />234.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that a 1986 federal law (since revised) mandating prison terms for crack cocaine (a drug of preference in the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)' Community)<br />Offenses that were sentenced up to eight times as long as for those involving powder cocaine (more of a drug of preference in the White Community).<br />235.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that for decades black males have been locked behind bars by the hundreds of thousands, arrested in disproportionate numbers.<br />In fact, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American males have experienced the highest rate of imprisonment—6.5 times that of white males and 2.5 that of Hispanic males—of the three major races in the Defendant (The United States of America).<br />236.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)(Negroes) Black African American males also face execution at rates far greater than those for the general population at rates approximately 4.5 times more than that of white prisoners and 17.5 times that of Hispanics.<br />237.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that about 10.4% of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American male population in the United States aged 25 to 29 was incarcerated, by far the largest racial or ethnic group—by comparison, 2.4% of Hispanic men and 1.2% of white men in that same age group were incarcerated.<br />238.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the number of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) a/k/a (Negro) Black African-America men in prison has grown to five times the rate it was twenty years ago. Today, more Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-American men are in jail than in college.<br />In 2000 there were 791,600 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African American men in prison and 603,032 enrolled in college.<br />In 1980, there were 143,000 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American men in prison and 463,700 enrolled in college.<br />239.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that in 1994 that one in three Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans were under some form of justice supervision (jail, prison, probation or parole).<br />240.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks Americans assert that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) race having had a history of abuse being committed directly by the Defendants (The United States of America) by direct actions of law enforcement agents from the time frame of Slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and into the present time frame.<br />242.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert before the Honorable Court such described hostile abuse being a direct result of the Defendant (The United States of America) actions as described all above herein and completely throughout hereinafter having been caused to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks heritage both past and present committed by among others “law enforcement”,<br />furtherance the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) mistrust of all of the Defendants (The United States of America) law enforcement .<br />243.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) while under the Indentured Servant system did live in harmony with other Indentured Servants of all races and did produce Mulatto Children but the Defendants (the United States of America) interfered by establishing Chattel Slavery and Black Slave Codes which resulted in the segregation of the races and control over every aspect of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) life.<br />244.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that (Negroes) Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) lived under a virtual Police State, even having to have a form of ID Card (papers) when off the Plantations.<br />Furthermore lack of Identification Papers or Permission slips to be off the plantation did result in serious disciplinary action.<br />245.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Fugitive Act of 1850 by the Defendant (The United States of America) that compelled U.S. Marshals to hunt down runaway slaves, leaving no legal redress in the Defendants (the United States of America) Free States no option but to return the (Negro) Black African-Americans to the South.<br />Furthermore did create a legacy of mistrust of law enforcement.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that often Free Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans were hauled off to slavery without legal redress.<br />246.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the (Negro) Black African-American have a legacy of Police Brutality being inflicted upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans. Rodney King in 1992 was a victim of Police Brutality was not an isolated event. The following (Negroes) Black African-Americans were victims from a long line of victims of the Defendants (The United States of America) police.<br /> Devin Robinson an author and activist as a teen, was a victim of police brutality at age 15, causing him to have permanent scarring from police dogs and being beaten by police officers at the precinct headquarters.<br /> Kathryn Johnson, Atlanta -- Nov. 2006: The 93-year-old grandmother was shot to death in her own home after plain-clothed officers obtained a 'no-knock' warrant and stormed inside her one-story brick home.<br />Robert Davis, New Orleans -- Oct. 2005: While walking in the French Quarter, the 64-year-old retired elementary school teacher was confronted by four police officers beating him, hitting him several times in the head, and arresting him for public intimidation.<br />Abner Louima, NY -- Aug. 1997: The Haitian immigrant won an $8.75 million lawsuit after his arrest outside a Brooklyn nightclub. While in custody, police officers sodomized the then 30-year-old with a plunger inside the station's bathroom. One officer, Justin Volpe, is still in prison.<br />247.<br />The Plaintiff will prove that the Judiciary has Demonstrated racial bias in it's rulings against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) throughout Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) ancestry and had a negative influence on the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black Ancestry. <br />248.<br />Dred Scott Case: The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will demonstrate before the Honorable Court that the Dred Scott Case of 1857 that the Supreme Court ruled that The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negroes could not be constitutionally considered citizens of the Defendant (The United States of America) and therefore Plaintiff and Plaintiff is not covered<br />Or furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) entitled by the “Bill of Rights” of the Defendants (The United States of America) nor could Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks receive the benefits of (Defendants) herein citizenship and therefore Dred Scott could not use or file a complaint in the Federal Court System and returned to slavery at the hands of the Defendant (The United States Of America). <br />249.<br />On March 6th, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B Taney delivered the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Seven of the nine justices agreed that Dred Scott should remain a slave, but Taney did not stop there.<br />He also ruled that as a slave, Dred Scott was not a citizen of the (Defendants) The United States of America, and therefore had no right to bring suit in the federal courts on any matter.<br /> <br />250.<br />In addition, he declared that Scott had never been free, due to the fact that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) slaves were personal property;<br />Thus the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the Federal Government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new (Defendants) territories.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Defendants (The United States of America) courts appeared to be sanctioning slavery under the terms of the Constitution itself, and saying that slavery of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) could not be outlawed or restricted within The Defendants control (The United States of America). <br />251.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts that the defendants American public reacted very strongly to the Dred Scott decision.<br />Antislavery groups feared that slavery would spread unchecked. The new Republican Party, founded in 1854 to prohibit the spread of slavery, renewed their fight to gain control of the Congress and the courts.<br />The Republican Party well-planned political campaign of 1860, coupled with divisive issues which split the Democratic Party, led to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States and South Carolina's secession from the Union.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will assert before the Honorable Court that The Dred Scott Decision moved the (Defendants) country to the brink of Civil War.<br />252.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that seven of the nine justices were appointed by pro-slavery Presidents with five of the seven coming from slave owning families that the outcome of returning Dred Scott to slavery was a foregone conclusion.<br /> Furthermore Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wanted to judicially legislate a final pro-slavery solution to the problem and define the property rights of the slave owners.<br />253.<br /> Chief Justice Roger B. Taney did so by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional stating that slave owners had the right to take their slave where ever they wanted and that the Defendants (The United States of America) federal government did not have the right to prohibit slavery in the Defendants (The United States of America) territories. <br />His convoluted arguments on citizenship sealed the fate of the Dred Scott and both free and enslaved Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks.<br />254.<br />Pace vs. Alabama. In Pace vs. Alabama the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) Supreme Court acted with racial bias and is a case where a Negro man and white woman were convicted of Adultery and fornication in violation of Section 4189 Code of Alabama which prohibited interracial relationships between Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negroes Blacks and (Whites).<br />255.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that Many of the (Defendants) States had law prohibiting interracial relationships, mostly attempting to maintain the purity of the (White) race and (White) supremacy by having the state meddling in family affairs.<br />256.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts that In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary.<br />When a Negro man named Tony Pace and a white woman named Mary Cox challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it--on grounds that the law, inasmuch as it prevented whites from marrying Negroes and Negroes from marrying whites,<br />Was race-neutral and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was finally overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).<br />257.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts that in 1883 when the Supreme Court heard the jointly known cases as the “Civil Rights Cases” and struck down the “Civil Rights Act of 1875”<br />the rights of full citizenship for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) family and their descendant’s were set back and would not be restored until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<br />258.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) stand adamant that the history of civil rights would have had a profoundly different result had the “Honorable Court” simply upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1875.<br /> Instead the Honorable Court chose to strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 allowing the Private Sector of the Defendants (The United States of America) the right to discriminate against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African Americans. <br />259.<br />Plessy v Ferguson: The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asserts that the Honorable Supreme Court decision upholding the Louisiana Law in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in or about 1896 mandating separate but equal accommodations for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)(Negroes) Black African Americans and Whites on Intrastate Rail Roads was constitutional provided the foundation for local and state governments to legislate measures separating the races.<br />300.<br /> Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court, the local and state governments of the Defendants (The United States of America), the Defendants herein did in facts pursue legislation separating and maintaining a social separation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African Americans from Defendants herein (The United States of America) White Society.<br />301.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) strongly assert that “Separate But Equal” never happened. “Separate but Equal” Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) schools were never equal in quality of education and in facilities.<br /> “Separate but Equal” dining rooms, restrooms, and even libraries were far from equal. Even hospitals that were established for Negroes were not equal.<br />302.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts of one far sighted Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan, wrote In his famous dissenting opinion, when he attacked the constitutionality of the Louisiana law stating,<br />"everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons."<br />303.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) moreover assert that the majority opinion was informed by a racists point of view. <br /> The majority opinion was delivered by Henry Billings Brown, attacked the Defendants (The United States of America) Thirteenth Amendment claims by distinguishing between political and social equality.<br />Furthermore using this distinction he maintained that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African Americans had equality politically<br />and that Socially the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negro Blacks was inferior. <br />Justice Billings Brown further asserted that the Black and Whites were treated equally in that both were provided seating in a railroad car one for Blacks and one for Whites.<br />304.<br />Cummings v. Richmond (1899). The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Supreme Court did not abide by it's own ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson in that it ruled without considering separate but equal in the case of Cummings v. Richmond.<br /> Three (Negro) Black African American families in Richmond County, Georgia petitioned the court to allow their children complete High School after the only black public high school was closed. <br />305.<br />The county maintained the Defendants (The United States of America) White School with taxes (including taxes collected from Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans.<br /> The Decision stated that where there was no Black High School the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negro Black African Americans would have to go without an education. <br />306.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Jim Crow Laws, disfranchisement in the Defendant's (The United States of America) South,<br />lynching, and white terrorist groups such as the KKK and other white supremacists groups was the root cause of “Great Migration” to the Defendant's (The United States of America) North and West.<br /> Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the (Negro) Black African Americans descendants move out of the Defendant's (United States of America) South for human survival, and safe reasoning as described herein.<br />307.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that starting in 1877 with 70,000 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)(Negro) Black African-Americans left the Defendant's (The United State of America) South to secure their freedoms which were threatened by hostile white paramilitary hate groups in the Defendant's (United States of America) South the Plaintiff and Plaintiff (Negro) moved to Kansas.<br />They were followed by the talented 10th who were educated Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans who relocated to the Defendant's (The United States of America) North.<br /> 308.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the mass movement of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American people left during the 1890's to settle urban areas along the (Defendants) North Eastern Coast.<br />309.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the single largest movement of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans occurred during World War I when 500,000 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans left the (Defendant's) rural South for North and Midwestern cities for work and opportunities denied Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans by the Defendants (The United States of America) Southern States.<br />Further more it is estimated that more than 6 million Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks African Americans made the move between the years of 1916-1960 and a steady migration thereafter until 1970's.<br />310.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the “Great Migration” occurred as the Defendant's(The United States of America) Southern States passed series of repressive legislation “Jim Crow Laws” and the Defendant (The United States of America) local and state white authorities refusal to prosecute “White Hate Mongers” who did inflict atrocities including but not limited to lynchings, random shootings, fire bombing homes, castrations, mutilations by the KKK and other hate group criminals.<br />311.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Great Migration of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans inflamed racist whites in the (Defendant's) Northern Cities where the Ku Klux Klan and it achieved it's greatest political power in Indiana.<br />312.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the migration of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans was coupled with poor Whites who also migrated from the farms to Urban areas for work increased the racial tensions in those cities and thus increased the attraction of whites to the Klan. <br />313.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the name “Ku Klux Klan” was used by independent groups and beginning in the 1950's the individual groups in the (Defendant's) city of Birmingham, Alabama were resisting social change and targeting Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans who were improving their lives by bombing their homes.<br />Furthermore,the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of Birmingham became known as Bombingham because of the numerous bombings.<br />314.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the homes of 40 of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)(Negro) Black African Americans in the (Defendant's) South were bombed during 1951 and 1952.<br />Furthermore,Some of the bombing victims were social activists whose work exposed them to danger, but most were either people who resisted the racist Jim Crow Laws and Etiquette and others were random acts of violence by the Klan.<br />315.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) State and Local Authorities often were allied with the “Ku Klux Klan” who refused to report the murder or other acts of violence against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />316.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asserts that in the Defendant's (The United States of America) the disfranchisement of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assured that any “Ku Klux Klan” member charged with a terrorist act of violence against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Back African-American would face an all (White) jury and often were acquitted.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-American facing a trial by jury would face an all (White) hostile jury.<br />317.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the “Ku Klux Klan activities during the 1950 and throughout the Civil Rights Movement did affect the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American Community(s) instilling intense and justified anger.<br />318.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that numerous Civil Right Activists were brutally murdered during the Civil Right Era by the Ku Klux Klan.<br />319.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that with high unemployment rate in the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) African-American community that a disproportionate number of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans are serving in the Military.<br />320.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that recently the Congress requested an investigation of the Defendant's (The United States of America) military as far as White Supremacist activities by Service Members. <br />321.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Defendant's (The United States of America The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has received hundreds of complaints of racism in the military.<br />322.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report says discrimination haunts The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans, Latinos and women in the military.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Assert that In 2000, 37.5% of the enlisted personnel were people of color, but only 16.2% of the officers were. <br />To include but not limited to Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) submit to factual evidences when the Los Angeles Times investigated the Ft. Leavenworth military prison in 1994, it found that 50% of all the inmates, and 83% of those under a military death sentence, were people of color (non-white) namely Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />323.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert In 1948,Defendant's (The United States of America) President Harry S Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the Armed Forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in Civil Rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress.<br />324.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the (Defendant's) US Navy was at the time of the Executive Order already proceeding with integration of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) beyond the reserve ratings (Stewards and Messmen) traditionally held by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negroes) Black African-Americans.<br />325.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that unemployment in the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American community continues to be higher than all of the other racial groupings.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that In February, 2010 Unemployment in the United States of America had dropped to 9.5 percent<br />While the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) over all Black African-American unemployment standing at 16.5 percent, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black male unemployment standing at a whopping 17.6 percent.<br />326.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the (Negroes) Black African-Americans live in areas where manufacturing in general was done and the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans have suffered from the shipping of the (Defendants) American Jobs Overseas. <br />327.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) strongly assert before the Honorable Court many of the other jobs held Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans were service related employment which is hard hit during current recessions.<br />328.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that just as the Plantation Owners exploited the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans through chattel slavery for the production of Tobacco and Cotton Exports<br /> and contemporary Defendants (The United States of America) companies have earned profits at the annual rate of $1.659 Trillion in the third-quarter of 2010, according to the Defendant's (The United States of America) Commerce Department statistical data.<br />329.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that the third-quarter of the Defendant ( The United States of America) Company profits is the highest recorded figure since the Defendant (the United States of America) began keeping records 60 years ago.<br />330.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Defendant's (United States of America) Corporations have been doing extremely well for seven straight quarters due to increased productivity utilizing less employees and from profits coming from Overseas U. S. Companies.<br />331.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court strongly that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Companies and Corporations are driven by excessive and pervasive greed and profits while the Defendant's workers and specifically namely the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans Unemployment rates remain on purposefully high.<br />332.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Civil Rights Movement in the first half of the 20th Century broadened after the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court Decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka to a strategy that emphasized "direct action"— boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, marches and similar tactics that relied on mass mobilization, nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. This mass action approach typified the movement from 1960 to 1968.<br />333.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that In 1952, the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, led by T.R.M. Howard, organized a successful boycott of gas stations in Mississippi that refused to provide restrooms for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African Americans.<br />334.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that The Montgomery Improvement Association — created to lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott managed to keep the boycott going for over a year until a federal court order required Montgomery to desegregate its buses.<br />335.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the success in Montgomery made its leader Dr. Martin Luther King a nationally known figure and also inspired other bus boycotts, such as the highly successful Tallahassee, Florida, boycott of 1956–1957.<br />336.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision regarding the case called Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, maintaining that it was Unconstitutional to separate the races in public schools.<br />Furthermore, the Decision in Brown v. Board of Education struck down previous decisions of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court namely Plessey v Fergusson (1896) and Cummings v Richmond County Board of Education (1899).<br />337.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that in 1957, while President Dwight D. Eisenhower was in office did order the Defendants (The United States of America) Troops from the 327th Regiment, 101st Airborne to escort the Little Rock Nine up the steps of Central High, Little Rock, Arkansas to comply with Court Orders. <br />This action was to counter the Defendant's (The United States of America) on Governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus calling out the National Guard to prevent the 9 students to enter Central High. President Eisenhower nationalized the Guard and ordered 101st Airborne escort duty.<br />338.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) city of Little Rock, Arkansas avoid complying with the Court Order to closed down the Public School System the following academic year.<br />339.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Civil Rights Movement received a boost of energy with student sit-ins at a Woolworth's stores throughout the Defendant's (The United States of America) Southern States with the first being in Greensboro, North Carolina.<br /> Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that On February 1, 1960, four students from North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College, an all-black college, sat down at the segregated lunch counter to protest Woolworth's policy of excluding African Americans.<br />340.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that as Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African American) students throughout the Defendant's (The United States of America) Southern States began to "sit-in" at the lunch counters of a few of the Defendant's (The United States of America) local stores, with the Defendant(s) (The United State of America) local authorities used excessive brute force to physically escort the demonstrators from the lunch facilities.<br />341.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Freedom Rides were journeys by the Defendant's (The United States of America) Civil Rights activists on interstate buses into the segregated the Defendant's (The United States) southern states to test the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court decision Boynton v. Virginia, (1960) 364 U.S. that ended segregation for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African American) passengers engaged in inter-state travel.<br /> 342.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Freedom Riders met violent mobs, suffered beatings, fire bombings, arrests, and over 300 Freedom Riders throughout that summer were jailed.<br />343.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that due to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and the Defendant's (The United States of America) White Civil Rights Activists the Defendant's (The United States of America) President John F. Kennedy ordered the Defendant's (The United States of America) Interstate Commerce Commission to issue Orders ending segregation.<br />344.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that when the Defendant's (The United States of America) new ICC rule took effect on November 1, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-American passengers were permitted to sit wherever they chose on the bus; "white" and "colored" signs came down in the terminals; separate drinking fountains, toilets, and waiting rooms were consolidated; and lunch counters began serving people regardless of skin color. <br />345.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that voting is a right and not a privilege was denied Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) by Jim Crow Laws throughout the Defendant's (The United States of America) Southern State by Poll Taxes, Literacy Tests and other requirements designed to cull the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Black African-Americans from the voter rolls.<br />346.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that in the fall of 1961, Robert Moses began a Voter Registration Drive in the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African American community in the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of McComb, Mississippi and the surrounding counties in the Defendant's (The United States of America) Southwest corner of the state of Mississippi.<br />Robert Moses efforts were met with violent repression from the Defendant's (The United States of America) state and local lawmen, White Citizens' Council, and Ku Klux Klan resulting in beatings, hundreds of arrests and the murder of voting activist Herbert Lee.<br />347.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the legacy of the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) the Founding Father of the Ku Klux Klan was active during the Civil Rights Era resulting in the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black Africans Civil Rights Activists and (White) Civil Right Activists suffering violent beatings, murders, and arrests by the Defendant's (The United States of America) local authorities who often were in allegiance with the Klan.<br />348.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that many of the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Mississippi's (white) residents deeply resented the outsiders, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans or (White) and any attempts to change the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Mississippi's (white) society.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that On June 21, 1964, three civil rights workers disappeared. James Chaney, a young (Negro)black African-American Mississippian; and two Jewish activists, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, were found weeks later, murdered by members of the Ku Klux Klan, some of them official members of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Neshoba County sheriff's Department.<br />349.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United State of America) the American public were outraged leading the U.S. Justice Department along with the FBI to take action.<br />350.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Non-violent sit ins, Freedom Rides, marches, Voter Education and Registration drives of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans resulting in beatings, murders, and jail sentences of Civil Disobedience the Defendant's (The United States of America) Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<br />Furthermore the Defendant's (The United States of America) Southern Congressmen and Representatives did Civil Rights Act of 1964 after 54 days of filibusters the Bill Passed and the Defendant's (The United States of America) President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Bill into law on July 2, 1964.<br />351.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations.<br />Furthermore the bill authorized the Defendant's (The United States of America) Attorney General to file lawsuits to enforce the new law. The law also nullified state and local laws which were contrary to the new law.<br />352.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) political leadership namely President John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Rev. Doctor Martin Luther King Jr who advanced the cause of Civil Rights were assassinated.<br />353.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 6. The 1965 act suspended poll taxes, literacy tests, and other subjective voter tests.<br />354.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the act had an immediate and positive impact for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans. Within months of its passage, 250,000 new black voters had been registered, one third of them by federal examiners. Within four years, voter registration in the the Defendants (The United States of America) South had more than doubled.<br />355.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that several whites who had opposed the Voting Rights Act paid a quick price. In 1966 the Defendant's (the United States of America) Sheriff Jim Clark of Alabama, infamous for using cattle prods against civil rights marchers, was up for reelection. <br />Furthermore at the election,the Defendant's (the United States of America) Sheriff Jim Clark lost as Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans voted him out of office. Former Sheriff Jim Clark later served a prison term for drug dealing.<br />356.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Blacks' regaining the power to vote changed the political landscape of the South. When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, only about 100 African Americans held elective office, all in northern states of the U.S. By 1989, there were more than 7,200 African Americans in office, including more than 4,800 in the South. <br />357.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the day after delivering his famous "Mountaintop" sermon at Lawson's church, King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in the Defendant's (the United States of America) Memphis TN. <br />358.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert the the Ku Klux Klan although no longer a national organization continues to exist prolonging the White Supremacist Legacy of the Klan's Founding Father the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson). With a Legacy of Murder, Beatings, and other violent atrocities the Ku Klux Klan in many places have for alliance with other Neo-Nazi groups.<br />359.<br />On November 14, 2008, an all-white jury of seven men and seven women awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages to Jordan Gruver who was severely and savagely beaten when he was 16 year old, at a Kentucky county fair in July 2006 by Klan Members.<br />360.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert current Klan splinter divisions have grown substantially since the 2008 election of the Defendant (The United States of America) President Barack Obama, the first African-American to hold the office.<br />361.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court that independent investigations in Florida concerning the 2000 Election revealed that serious irregularities directed mostly against minorities and low-income residents who normally vote Democratic Namely the Plaintiff and Plaintiff.<br />362.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that 36,000 newly registered voters were turned away because names “had not been entered” to the Defendant's(The United States of America) voters roll by the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Florida's Secretary of State Kathleen Harris. <br />363.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Defendant's (United States of America) other voters were turned away because they were declared--almost always incorrectly--“convicted felons.” Most were Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-American or other minorities. In several Democratic precincts, state officials closed the polls early, leaving lines of would-be voters.<br />364.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American precincts. <br /> The Defendant's (The United States of America) State Troopers were positioned near polling places doing auto searches delaying many voters and intimidating others on orders of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Florida's Governor Jeb Bush<br />365.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that voter intimidation and creative ways to disfranchise Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American were in play during the 2000 Defendants (The United States of America) Presidential Election.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that, the Decision of the Supreme Court came along Party Lines to limit the recount assured the Election of George W. Bush.<br /> 366.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the 2004 Presidential Election was no different with irregularities and voter disfranchisement against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) was reported across the Defendant's (The United States of America) Country.<br /> The 2004 Presidential election the election hinged on one of the Defendant's (The United States of America) states primary Ohio.<br />The Plaintiff strongly assert respectfully before the Honorable Court in that The Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Ohio supply a concerted wrongful effort to suppress the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) voting rights by not limited to preallocated voting machine and furthering in a scheme of things in creating long voting lines in Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) poorer neighborhood,<br />With other voter scheme of things in Factious letters from the Board of Elections but were from Republican Thugs telling newly registered Democrats that their voter registrations were invalid and others informed Democrats that due to heavy voter turn out expected Democrats were to vote the day before election day.<br />With furtherance in the scheme by wrong computations of Absentee Ballots being not counted if submitted to Defendants (The United States of America) wrong precincts. <br /> <br />367.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Administration of George W. Bush handling of Hurricane Katrina was a total failure and that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) race (Negro) was a factor in the poor response which left 1000's of New Orleans stranded at the Dome and on roof tops.<br /> Hurricane Katrina of the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season was the costliest natural disaster, as well as one of the five deadliest hurricanes, in the history of the United States.<br />At least 1,836 people lost their lives in the actual hurricane and in the subsequent floods, making it the deadliest U.S. hurricane; total property damage was estimated at $81 billion (2005).<br />368.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) was slow to activate the Federal Emergency Response Resources while the Defendant(s) (The United States of America) citizens watched in horror the poorly coordinated attempts to rescue the poor Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) who were unable to evacuate prior to the storm.<br />Furthermore the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Louisiana high rate off poverty, illiteracy, and poor medical care for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) contributed toward the inability of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) to evacuate.<br /> The Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Louisiana has a legacy of abuse of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) starting with Chattel Slavery (having one of the oldest slave sellers block in the nation and now known as Louis Armstrong Park), repression of education, and poor health-care continuing to the present time frame.<br />369<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of American) the States of Louisiana has a long heritage of Political Corruption in all levels of the Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Louisiana government effecting primarily the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American in every aspect.<br />370.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Defendant's (the United States of America) Corporations are making money hand over fist at the expense Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />Further more the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Following the Model of Cheap Labor used by the Defendant's (the United States of America) Plantation Owners who made money off the sweat of Chattel Slaves a/k/a Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) modern Corporations have sought now cheap labor overseas exporting jobs held by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s). <br />371.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Defendant(s) (The United States of America) Corporations in the search of cheap labor having exported jobs out of the country while the Defendant(s) (The United States of America) themselves having exported arms of over $60 billion sales of fighter-jet to Saudis. <br />Furthermore the Defendant (the United States of America) Government project includes the sale of 84 F-15 Fighter-jets as well as more than 120 Apache Attack Helicopters and S-70 utility helicopters to the Gulf Arab kingdom. Additionally the Defendant's (the United States of America ) possibly exporting AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile to the Royal Jordanian Air Force. It is further reported that Israel was preparing for the U.S. Delivery of the GBU-28, a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition designed to penetrate more than 20 feet of concrete.<br />372.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that while the Defendant(s) Military Industrial Complex is prospering the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans are getting crumbs.<br />373.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) corporations greed has become so pervasive that even loyalty to the well being of the Defendant's (The United States of America) citizens is neglected affecting the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American.<br />374.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Corporate Greed was behind the 2001 Enron which sought to cover up through misleading accounting the exact financial health of the corporation's ventures causing financial harm to Enron Investors, Pensioners, and Employees including Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)(Negro) Black African-Americans employed by Enron.<br />375.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Banking and Lending Institutions out of corporate greed, wanting to loan and receive commissions did write and approve of High Risk Loans costing the Defendant's (The United States of America) taxpayers by the bail out of Banks and Lending Institutions including Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac programs designed to help lower income Defendant's in (The United States of America) being citizens and namely the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans citizens.<br />376.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that (The Defendant's (The United States of America) corporations operating under the culture of greed was behind the Ponzi Scheme of Bernie Madoff. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts that the Defendant (The United States of America) U.S. regulators “blindly with purpose “never inspected Bernard Madoff's investment advisory business, alleged to be a Ponzi scheme that cost investors $50 billion.<br />Furthermore, The Securities and Exchange Commission hadn't examined Madoff's books since he registered the unit with the agency in September 2006,<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff furtherance this highlighting failure to regulate and investigate corporate abuse under the defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush in allegiance additional to Presidential Fraud for greed.<br />377.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) corporations operating under the culture of greed mismanaged and misread the market during a time when Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) consumers were rightfully concerned about high fuel prices and environmental issue producing vehicles that consumed fuel.<br />To include but not limited the Plaintiff and Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court corporations namely “The auto industry” turned to the Defendants (The United States Government) for monetary Bail Outs similar to the Bank Bail Outs forcing monies from the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) who all already supported the Defendants (The United States of America) already through chattel slave free labor system. <br />378.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court facts and direct evidence that the Defendant's (The United States of America) politicians in search of money for their campaigns have become susceptible to lobbyist from corporations who expect political favors for their corporations greed and selfish interests , all being well looked after over, and above the needs of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) citizens within in the Defendants (The United States of America) Jurisdiction.<br />379.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States) Senator's and Representatives use Ear Mark's, to wit: setting aside of funding for special projects in the Defendant's (The United States of America) individual states.<br /> All of which Defendants (The United States of America) Earmarked projects often not require by fair bidding involvement with the Plaintiff and Plaintiff prior knowledge<br />and made for abuse of earmarks by said Defendants, to include a complex computation design system having now been in place to grow against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) interest throughout Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) existences.<br />380.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Courts that the corporate culture of greed includes the Defendant's (The United States of America) politician Tom Delay<br /> The Defendant's (The United States of America) “Majority Wip in the House of Representatives found guilty on charges of money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate greed money(s) to Texas candidates in 2002. <br />Furthermore The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans assert and maintain before the Honorable Court that said money laundering scheme of things was to support “Republican Candidates” against the rightful future of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) withstanding the fact that the “Republican” party was already bloated with earmark and pork against all of the interests and well being of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) through out history to present time frame.<br />381.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that Chattel System enforced placement upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) made by the the Defendant's (The United States of America) and to include but not limited to by Presidential Design of the Co-Defendant herein (President Andrew Johnson) for approximately over 250 years in time<br />All of which said Defendants herein (The United States of America) in furtherance all pre and post time frame collusion with Co- Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) in facts prosper handsomely off the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) said (Negro) Black African-Americans whom suffered among other thing at the hands of all said described Defendant's herein “Premature Death cause by Hangings, Slaughters,<br />To include Defendants (The United States of America) inflictions upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) of Beatings, threats Intimidations,<br />Withstanding a forced current time frame state of purgatory of poverty upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) in 2010.<br />All of which was done to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) throughout a past scheme of things in among other things involvement of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) “suffering from forced upon illiteracy” and “ineptitude” and furthermore all done upon heritage suffering a legacy of deteriorated health from the hand of the Defendants (The United States of America) and Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson).<br />382.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show before the Honorable Court that from the defendants (The United States of America) Private Sector Entrepreneur “Bill and Belinda Gates Foundation” has contributed to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans behalf gifts in advancing education and culture needs.<br /> The Foundation Gates contributed $10 Million to the Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History and culture. <br />383.<br />To include but not limited the Plaintiff and Plaintiff further respectfully assert before the Honorable Court facts that “Sir” Knighted Bill Gates and his wife “Belinda Gates” Honorably aided to the Established Scholarships for African-American Students including Scholarships Administered by the United Negro College Fund with donated funds in excess of US$1.5 billion dollars for scholarships to fully aid in high achieving minority students.<br />384.<br />To include but not limited to the Plaintiff himself will admit on the behalf of the Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American (Negro) states facts before the Honorable Court” in substances that further Bill and Belinda Gates unselfishly in being of natural nice persons did under unselfish greed circumstances made contribute funding to reverse the wrongful inflicted Educational Neglect and abuse inflicted upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American Community,<br /> By all of the criminal activities the Defendants (The United States of America) inflicted herein in collusion with the Co-Defendant herein (President Andrew Johnson) in a furtherance combine scheme, conspiracies and hostile acts for control of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans through the free labor slave Chattel System having said enforced and described herein for all ill-gotten gains of the Defendants (The United States of America) in furtherance collusion with Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) there of from free slave labor.<br />385.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) has funded a “Genocide Program” targeting poor and uneducated Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-American (Negro) women on Welfare.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will respectfully assert before the Honorable Court this criminal “Genocide Program the Defendant's (The United States of America conducted against all Plaintiffs described herein were From dates of 1983,<br />When the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) constituted only 12% of the Defendants (The United States of America) population,<br /> 43% of the women sterilized in this federally funded family planning programs were Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans women whom all were on welfare.<br />386.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that outside of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Federal Program of Sterilization associated with Family Planning<br />A large numbers of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American women were sterilized unwittingly and without consent. <br />Furthermore Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court facts that an estimated of 100,000 to 150,000 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American women under went said Defendant's (The United States of America) “Genocide Federal Program of Sterilization against any prior knowledge and will in this federally funded sterilizations criminal scheme of things committed throughout the Defendant's (The United States of America) Southern States.<br />387.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that Mississippi Appendectomies (Hysterectomies) were also common in the Defendant's (the United States of America) Northern Hospitals and in 1972 Defendant's (The United States of America) medical students protested the policy of performing unnecessary hysterectomies on Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-American women in order to allow students to practice.<br />388.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that factually the Defendant's (The United States of America) Medical Schools did violate the sanctity of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans graves employing grave robbers to desecrate the resting place Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans to slice up. It was prevalent during the late 18th Century<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court facts that In 1994, construction workers found a well at Medical Collage at in the Defendants (The United States of America) state namely Virginia, human bones the Smithsonian would later determine belonged to 26 separate Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks African American individuals,<br /> Some of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) remains had been desecrated by acts of surgical incisions on them. Even before the Civil War, (MCV) and the Defendants (The United States of America) University of Virginia competed for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) bodies from Defendants (The United States of America) Virginia’s big cities and it is estimates that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American bodies stolen from Richmond’s Black cemeteries number in the thousands.<br />389<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will the show the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans never received just reparations or any justified compensation for all free slave labor performed during all forced Chattel Slavery.<br /> Nor has the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American) having a fair legal hand in any physical draft, both supporting a economically advancement agreement being made fair in whole or a part in any agreements made namely in said “40 acres and Mule provisions“<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) point out that other minorities groups have been compensated for all wrongful acts of atrocities in direct abuses committed by said Defendants (The United States of America)<br />Namely the “Japanese” who were forced to abandon their homes and placed in Internment Camps during World War II and “Native Americans” who were provided Reservations through treaties.<br />390.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that slavery existed from the dawn of human history. Slavery was known to occur in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as almost every other ancient civilization, including Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, and the Pre-Columbian Civilizations of the Americas. <br />Further more such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves. <br />391.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Africans on the Continental Country of Africa, themselves played a role in the slave trade of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) by selling captive or prisoners of war Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) to European buyers.<br /> Selling captives or prisoners Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) was common practice amongst “Africans and Arabs” during that era.<br />392.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance assert before the Honorable Court that the “Transatlantic Slave Trade (TST) by the Defendant's (The United States of America) and the Colonialist resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for Plaintiff and Plaintiff (Negro) African American captives both in and outside of the Defendant (The United States of America).<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) , state facts that approximately 1.2 – 2.4 Million Plaintiff and Plaintiff (Negro) Africans died during their transport to the the Defendants (The United States of America) “New World”.<br />To include but not limited to More Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) died soon upon their arrival.<br /> It is unknown how many Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) died in the “Wars and Raids that occurred to procure Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) for the transformation of free labor via slaves.<br />393<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the captive prisoners from wars, slave raids, and prisoners were held in fortresses known as Factories often for months on end awaiting their purchase by Defendants (The United States of America) Slave Traders.<br /> Many of the of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) being captured slaves didn't make it past the factory. <br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert strongly before the Honorable Court that Those Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) that did make it through the factory, had to face the horrors of cramped spaces, diseases, and poor nutrition with many of them dying on the voyage to the Defendants (The United States of America) New World.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that any Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) that survived that ordeal were shipped to seasoning camps, treated harshly to break Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) spirits like one would break a horse. <br />394.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that the Atlantic Slave trade targeted a specific race namely the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American ushering in “Chattel Slavery” and the atrocities including but not limited to hangings, beatings, rapes, uncompensated labor that were perpetuated against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans by the Defendant's (The United States) capitalist.<br />395.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that violence against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans by the Defendant's (The United States of America) white supremacists is not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff (Negro) Black African-American Community but includes Native Americans and Asian Communities to advance “White Race” as superior being with the Defendant (The United States of America).<br />396.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Asians and Native Americans have suffered also from the legacy of the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) the founding father of the Ku Klux Klan.<br />Furthermore, For more than 200 years, Asian Americans have been denied equal rights, subjected to harassment and hostility, had their rights revoked and imprisoned for no justifiable reason, physically attacked, and murdered.<br />397.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which barred Chinese Immigration.<br /> The first time the Defendant (The United States of America) wrongfully excluded an entire race the privilege of immigration.<br />398.<br />The Plaintiff's and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully aver before the Honorable Court that like the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans in the late 1800s Chinese miners were not allowed to testify against the Defendants (The United States of America) Whites who attacked them or murdered their friends.<br />Furthermore the Defendant (The United States of America) Courts in the 1800's, by not allowing the Chinese miners the basic right to testify against (Whites) themselves The Defendant(s) (The United States of America) did effectively establish the Chinese race as second class citizens<br />Just as the Jim Crow Laws of the Defendants (The United States of America) denied to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans the right to testify against the Defendants (The United States of America) White Person furtherances in the proof of establish second class citizenship upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans.<br />399.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully before the Honorable Court that Native Americans were forced from their lands, placed on Reservations located in many cases on land not wanted by the Defendants (The United States of America) Whites,<br />Furtherances Criminal acts in provided diseased contaminated blankets as a mean of attempted Genocide by the Defendant (The United States of America) and devalued also as human beings being reduced to 2nd class citizens.<br />400.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court was not immune to the White Supremacist cause perpetuating the legacy of the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson.<br />401.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court did render race biased decisions as covered above Refer to Dred Scott (No.s 251-256), Pace vs Alabama (No.s 254-256),<br />The Civil Rights Cases (No.s 257-258), Plessy vs Furgusson (No.s 259-303) and Cummings vs Richmond (No.s 304-305)<br />402.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that a pattern of race biased decisions continued in:<br />Ozawa v. United States (1922).<br /> When Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. Citizen of the Defendant (The United States of America), despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to Whites and African Americans Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br /> Ozawa's argument was a novel one: Rather than challenging the Constitutionality of the statute himself (which, under the racist Court, would have probably been a waste of time anyway),<br />He simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were (White). The Court rejected this logic.<br />403.<br /> United States v. Thind (1923)<br />An Indian-American U.S. Army veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind attempted the same strategy as Takeo Ozawa,<br /> But his attempt at naturalization was rejected in a ruling establishing that Indians, too, are not white.<br /> Well, the ruling technically referred to "Hindus" (ironic considering that Thind was actually a Sikh, not a Hindu),<br />But the terms were used interchangeably at the time.<br />Three years later he was quietly granted citizenship in the Defendants (The United States of America) state of New York; he went on to earn a Ph.D. and Teach at the University of California at Berkeley.<br />405.<br /> Lum v. Rice (1927)<br />In 1924, the Defendants (The United States of America) Congress passed the Oriental Exclusion Act to dramatically reduce immigration from Asia--but Asian Americans born in the Defendants (United States of America) were still citizens,<br />And one of these citizens, a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22.<br /> Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school--but she was Chinese and she lived in the Defendants (The United States of America) state of Mississippi,<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert (Mississippi) had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school.<br />Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local Defendants (The United States of America) White school, but the Court would have none of it.<br />406.<br />Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)<br />During World War II, The Defendants (The United States of America) President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans and ordering 110,000 to be relocated to internment camps.<br />Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the Defendants (The United States of America) University of Washington, challenged the Executive Order before the Supreme Court--and lost.<br />407.<br /> Korematsu v. United States (1944)<br />Fred Korematsu also challenged the Executive Order, and lost in a more famous and explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during “Wartime”.<br /> The ruling, generally considered one of the worst in the history of the Defendants (The United States of America) Highest Court system on record, has been almost universally condemned over the past (six) Decades.<br />408.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that “Hate Crimes” continues to be a plague disgrace the Defendant (The United States of America)<br /> The Land of the Free and that “Legacy of the original founding father of the “Ku Klux Klan” Co-Defendant herein (President Andrew Johnson) furtherances in the establishment of a “paramilitary military organization” namely that “Ku Klux Klan” to the full infliction of Death, Hanging among other criminal acts involved as fully described herein for themselves the Defendants (The United States of America) endorsement of “White Supreme Race” .<br />409.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully will Show the Honorable Court in the case of two Shenandoah, Pa., (White) Men Convicted of Hate Crime in the Fatal Beating of Luis Ramirez. According to the evidence presented at trial, on July 12, 2008,<br /> The (White) Defendants came upon Ramirez in a park after leaving a community festival. The defendants in the case attacked Ramirez.<br /> During the course of the beating, the (White) Defendants and their (White) friends yelled racial epithets in which they repeatedly called Ramirez a racial derogatory term and told him<br />"This is Shenandoah. This is America. Go back to Mexico."<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court That after the fight concluded,<br /> Ramirez was taken to Geisinger Regional Medical Center, where he died of “massive head injuries”.<br /> The jury also heard evidence that, immediately following the beating,<br />Donchak conspired with some of his friends, some of their parents,<br />And members of the Defendants (The United States of America) Shenandoah Police Department to Obstruct the investigation of the fatal assault.<br />410.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert to the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Texas<br /> On the periphery of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Old South shares the region's bloody history of race-motivated Hate Crimes -<br />A legacy inherited from the furtherance involvement to include but not limited to actions of Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) that continues to the present day.<br />411.<br /> James Byrd Jr., of Jasper a Plaintiff (Black) man who was chained and dragged to his death on June 7, 1998 behind a pickup truck,<br />The Defendant's (The United States of America) Texas Department of Public Safety noted that most hate crimes in the Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Texas are fueled by racial or ethnic hatred.<br /> The murder of James Byrd Jr was done by two White Supremacist.<br />412.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Texas' violent history dates to the late 19th century<br />When it was among the Defendant's (The United States of America) South's most lynch-prone states.<br /> At least 355 people, most of them Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Blacks, died in Defendants (The United States of America) state Texas mob violence between 1889 and 1918.<br />413.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will aver to the Honorable Court that in/or about June 2009 that four (White) teens were charged with the strangling death of 49 year old Chinese account executive David Kao, in Flushing,<br />New York. Under questioning the teens, aged 16 and 17, confessed to dragging, choking, and beating Kao in the backseat of his car before dumping his body on a nearby street.<br />414.<br />The Plaintiff herein will show the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) filed his own “Hate Crime” case to correct the decision of the Defendants “Continental Congress” Provision<br />In all material facts “remove” the final grievances as contained in the 1776 “Declaration of Independence” by author of the Declaration of Independence “President Thomas Jefferson”.<br />Rightfully criticized the Crown Monarch of England for introducing of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negro slave trade to the Defendant's (The United States of America).<br />415.<br />The Plaintiff sought to reverse the ill effects of the Continental Congress removal of the final grievance in order to please the Defendant's (The United States of America) slave own colonies/states.<br /> Furthermore the Plaintiff sought to reverse the vile and despicable, criminal acts of the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson and his creation of the Klu Klux Klan to work against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)<br />416.<br />Following Reconstruction of the Defendants (The United States of America) South their after Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) took officially the office of the Defendants (President of the United States) office;<br /> their after the said collusion in “Murder for hire scheme” in the actual assassination of President Abraham Lincoln for the furtherance of this “Chattel free enslavement scheme of things.<br />417.<br /> The Plaintiff further Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court due to the force foresight involving current events of racism within the Defendant's (the United States of America) state namely (North Dakota) in 2002.<br />418.<br />The Plaintiff very own quest for the full restoration of equal humane Harmony and peaceful existence among all the races<br /> To include but not limited to equal humane Harmony and peaceful existence among the (White) race enjoying the same within the Defendants (The United States of America) State of (North Dakota).<br />419.<br />Plaintiff assert furtherance with strong venomous language “said Harmony, and peaceful existences having already been established between “all citizens” regardless of (race) in Defendants (The United States of America) entire possession, custody and control,<br />Before the introduced system of Free labor under “Chattel Slave System” against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) rightfully peace, will, and dignity.<br />420.<br />Plaintiff assert Respectfully herein that the Defendant's (the United State of America) State of North Dakota<br />Fully remaining in defiance with the Defendant's (The United States of America) past “Hateful Cultural”<br /> Being the only remaining state in refusal to establishment of Hate Crime statues to fully protect the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) within the Defendants (The United States of America) state namely “North Dakota”<br />. See the Plaintiff (Hamilton) own following case”<br />421.<br /> 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14287,*;40 Fed. Appx. 33a<br />Louis Charles Hamilton, II, and all other Citizens in and for the State of North Dakota, Appellant, v. State of North Dakota; North Dakota Department of Labor;<br /> Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota; Governor John Hoeven, Appellees.<br />No. 02-1565<br />UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT<br />2002, Filed<br />NOTICE:   <br />PRIOR HISTORY:   <br />40 Fed. Appx. 337; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14287<br />July 5, 2002, Submitted<br />July 15, 2002, Filed<br />NOTICE:    [*1]  RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.<br />PRIOR HISTORY:   Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.<br />DISPOSITION:   Affirmed.<br />COUNSEL:   LOUIS CHARLES HAMILTON, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro Se, Fargo, ND.For STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, GOVERNOR JOHN HOEVEN, Defendants - Appellees: William G. Peterson, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Bismarck, ND.<br />JUDGES:   Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.<br />OPINION   PER CURIAM.Louis Charles Hamilton, II, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court n1 for the District of North Dakota, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -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, 130 L. Ed. 2d 318, 115 S. Ct. 366 (1994).<br />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, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992) (requirements for standing); (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.<br />421.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) well known corporations (Kellogg Brown & Root LLC) engage in corrupt practices,<br />On or about Feb. 11, 2009 the Defendant's (The United States of America) Agency of The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settlements with KBR, Inc.<br /> And the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherances Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Halliburton Co. to resolve (SEC) charges that KBR subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root LLC<br /> (Kellogg Brown & Root LLC) bribed Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA),<br /> in order to obtain construction contracts.<br />The (SEC) also charged that KBR and Halliburton, KBR's former parent company, engaged in books and records violations and internal controls violations related to the bribery.<br />423.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Respectfully will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Vice President Dick Cheney prior to being elected Vice President did serve as a CEO of Halliburton.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Furthermore assert, that while serving as Vice President Dick Cheney while in Office with the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George Bush Halliburton received numerous “Non Bid War Contracts” worth millions of dollars along with it's subsidiaries Kellogg Brown & Root LLC receiving non bid contracts for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. <br />422.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert Respectfully before the Honorable Court that Martha Stewart had been in the news for several months in the past<br /> Until found guilty of Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) insider trading Laws of the Defendants (The United States of America).<br />423.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that While the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans are less than one-half percent of the Defendant's (United States of America) state of Utah's population,<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans account for 25 percent of those on “Death Row in 1992 in (Utah).<br /> Furthermore, the incarceration rate of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American remains approximately 15 times that of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)Negro) Black African-American actual population percentage.<br />424.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert that the Mormon Religion exerts tremendous political power and pressure on the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Utah state government and courts. <br />The Church of the Latter-day Saints has a long history of promoting racism toward the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints In the past, the LDS church gave more benefits, such as entrance into the priesthood, to white people while denying it to people who have black skin Namely The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />425.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that this racial theology that Historic Mormonism produced was no doubt a result of the various passages in the Book of Mormon which speak of God causing:<br /> "A Skin of Blackness” to come upon them (those who hardened their hearts against the Lord)" who formerly had skin which was "white”, and exceedingly fair and “Delightsome."<br />"Ideas that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black people are cursed Descendent's of Cain, one of the Bible's greatest Villains,<br /> And that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks directly were less valiant in the premortal life, essentially 'fence-sitters' in the battle between God and Satan in heaven,<br />Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) Respectfully appearing Pro Se before the Honorable Court state with full personal Knowledge that this pattern and practices continue to be taught and believed by many Mormons in 2010, although not sanctioned as doctrine."<br />426.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that the Mormon faith was established around the time when many Conservative Protestants taught “the Curse of Cain” as a justification for “Chattel Slavery” of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)<br />And later “Jim Crow Laws” to justify the separation of the races. While the racist teachings were dropped by many of the Protestant churches the Mormon Church (Church of the Latter-day Saints) retained them as their Book of Mormon taught racism.<br />427.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully aver to the Honorable Court that interracial marriage is strongly discouraged in the Mormon Faith. <br /> Furthermore, the President of the Church of the Latter-day Saints in the 1970's said, “We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans;<br />The Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”<br /> This teaching has not been revoked although it is no longer counted as a sin.<br />428.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Church of Latter-day Saints in the 1960's and 1970's practiced selective racism with the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans targeted.<br />In spite of the ban on ordination for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans, ordination and higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, and other non-whites.<br />Furthermore, in some countries it was impossible to distinguish whether the ordinate's had African descendants.<br />429.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff and his family suffered grievous harm while residing in the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Utah<br />and did not receive from the Defendant's (The United States of America) the state of Utah Full Equal Protection Under the Law, to wit:.<br />430.<br />The Plaintiff herein (Louis Charles Hamilton II) Dated and Married a Female of (White) race, a “Very Beautiful Woman” named Rachel Ann Walker Prior to the Marriage of the Plaintiff<br /> (Rachel) had been prosecuted, found guilty, and Ex-Communicated from The Mormon Church by her own family for having previously had relations with a (Negro) man Richie Benns. <br />Plaintiff assert before the Honorable Court furtherance facts with Richie Benns Rachel had two children, Shanna Benns and Billie-jean Benns prior to the Plaintiff courtship.<br />431.<br />The Plaintiff at the time was employed by Dan, Mary Ann, Derrick, and Lisa Olson who owned the Art Gallery and Regis Hotel on State Street in the Defendant's (The United States of America) Salt Lake City, Utah;<br />Plaintiff was held in the position of Caretaker of the above named properties. The “Olson entire Mormon family” were natural nice people much like that of “Bill and Belinda Gates” described previously<br /> and were from a different faction within the Latter-day Saint Church that expressing Peace among allegiance of Christ.<br />The Olson Family provided the Plaintiff financial security by providing steady productive income through employment and friendship. <br />432.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) and his Fiancée were charged with Cohabitation twice and appearing before the Court<br />The first time where the Plaintiff was called the evil and refer to as the “Devil” before the court and found guilty.<br />Furthermore, the Defendant's (the United States of America) State of Utah Court “Declared the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) to be the Devil in an action to prevent the couple from Marrying.<br />433.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) asserts Respectfully before the Honorable Court that Rachel's parents Lowell and Helen Walker and the Father of her two Daughters, Shanna Benns and Billie-Jean Benns; Richie Benns did conspire to kidnap Rachel daughters along with Richie Benns' Mother and did relocate them to the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of California.<br />434.<br />The Plaintiff “Wife” Rachel Ann Hamilton (Walker) by maiden, Daughter of Lowell and Helen Walker. Helen Walker with siblings Nico, Nathan, Nathaniel, Faith, Lawana, Malissa, Corey among other family members with full opposition of the marriage did not attend the wedding. <br />The only family member in attendance was Rachel's Father Lowell Walker who delivered hateful correspondence expressing the family's disapproval.<br />435..<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) will Respectfully show the Honorable Courtesies that in the year of 1989, Thanksgiving Day, the Plaintiff and his spouse who was pregnant at the time was invited over to her parent's home for Thanksgiving Dinner. <br />The Plaintiff asserts that upon arrival at the home of her parents there was no Turkey in the Oven, no Holiday trimmings, or preparations for a Holiday Feast. <br />The Plaintiff furthermore, was invited to play football with his spouse's brothers and father. While out of his spouse's parents home the women did premeditatedly assault and beat his fiancée to effect a Mormon Abortion.<br /> When the Defendant's (The United States of America) local police arrived they advised the Plaintiff to take his fiancée home before he face arrest. The Plaintiff further avers that his fiancée miscarried their first child on December 13, 1989 as the Plaintiff endure.<br />436.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff's in-laws on numerous occasions did disrespect the Plaintiff's Religion, that being Roman Catholic Church coming from a deeply religious home.<br /> The Plaintiff had a blessed cross on his door which upset his father-in-law who misquoting scripture did call it an evil symbol. The Plaintiff was raised in a home where his Grandmother, a nun had a private Convent. As stated previously above (ref No. 430) the Plaintiff's wife had already been excommunicated from the Mormon Faith. <br />Furthermore the Plaintiff's in-laws did violate the Plaintiff and his wife Rachel Hamilton's freedom and liberty to run their own home and religion as they saw fit under the Defendant's United States of America) Constitution “In the Pursuit of Life and Liberty” and “Freedom of Religion”.<br />437.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) Respectfully and strongly asserts that after the births of the Plaintiff and Rachel's Hamilton daughters after marriage – Chandra D. Hamilton and Natasha C. Hamilton, the Plaintiff's Father, in-law Lowell Walker and his family was very hostile to the Plaintiff and wanted to take the Plaintiff new-born-baby and mother to his home rather than allowing the Plaintiff to take his wife and new born babies to their own home which this fashion was done at the birth of Plaintiff second Daughter..<br />438.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) asserts that the Plaintiff's right for “Equal Protection under the Law” was violated by both the Defendant's (The United States of America) Salt Lake Police Department and the local courts which as mentioned above Declared the Plaintiff the Devil according to the Book of Mormon with full effect thereof.<br />439.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) avers before the Honorable Court that Rachel Hamilton, birth date May 25, 1964, Social Security Number 528-31-5565 committed suicide on August 20, 1994. The Plaintiff's in-law barred the Plaintiff from his wife's funeral which was in accordance with the Mormon Faith.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff asserts that his wife was stripped of his name so that his wife could receive the Mormon Burial Rites.<br />To include but not limited to the Plaintiff's daughter's also possibly being strip of the Plaintiff name.<br />440.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) asserts strongly that being a single parent did temporarily give custody to the Grandparents Lowell and Helen Walker who thereafter did deny the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) custody or visitation rights to present date denying the Plaintiff a life with his children, companionship and Peaceful Existence with their Natural Father the Plaintiff.<br />441.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) will show the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff fled the Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Utah to seek a means to support his daughters<br /> and escaping both (White) racism and persecution by the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of Salt Lake Mormon dominated courts system in concert with its police system violating Plaintiff herein (Hamilton) “Freedom to Practice” his Roman Catholic Faith and be free in harmony of the (Negro) race with the Defendants (The United States of America) state “Namely (UTAH).<br />442.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton) does solemnly and vigorously assert that “Separation of Church and State” as put forth by the Defendant's (The United States of America) President Thomas Jefferson,<br />and Furtherance has been a guiding principle of relations between Church and State was violated by the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of Salt Lake and State of Utah against the peace, will, rights, and dignity of the Plaintiff herein Louis Charles Hamilton II..<br />443.<br />The Plaintiff herein will Respectfully assert strongly before this Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) and Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) provided the starting grounds for the Defendants (The United States of America) state Namely Utah, to discriminate against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African-Americans.<br />444.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were denied Freedom of Religion while under the bondage of “Chattel” Slavery. Having lost their freedoms did take on the religions of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Plantation Owners.<br />445.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that during the Defendant's ( The United States of America ) Presidential Election of 2008 when a smear campaign was pursued by the Media and Political Opponents,<br />attacking and attempts to taint the Religion preference of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African-American Presidential candidate “Barrack Obama” making religious preference an issue of qualification for the Defendant (The United States of America) Office of the Presidency.<br />446.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) Politicians consistently use Ear Marks and Pork waisting the Defendant's and Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (The United State of America) taxpayers money on Pet Projects.Many of which are questionable as to the benefit to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-Americans currently still declared “Second Class Citizens.Furthermore, Sarah Palin the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Alaska's former “Governor” and Former Republican Vice-presidential Candidate,As Governor, Sarah Palin opted to use the $200 million that Congress had originally set aside (Ear marked) for the bridge project linking the town of Ketchikan (population 7,500) with an airport on sparsely populated Gravina island and used the Pork Funds for other transportation projects.On or about 2009 Sarah Palin was allegedly Embezzling from the Wasillia Sports Complex Project while she was the Defendant's (The United States) Mayor of the town of Wasilla, Alaska in 2002.The $12million plus project ended up in the hands of contractors who were friends of friends of Sarah Palin.Secondly, at around the same time the sports complex was being built, so was Sarah Palin’s new house. It is alleged that the materials in Sarah Palin's new house are the exact same materials used in the sports complexCurrently Sarah Palin is promoting her political agenda, which is indicative of an agenda contrary to the interests of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African-American which is very hostile and extreme conservative in nature Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court (Palin) among other in this (Tea Party) promoting the (White) Supremacist interests,In direct collusion with the legacy of the Defendant (The United States of America) system of chattel free slave labor.To include but not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert (Palin) among others in this (Tea Party) furtherance’s in a Direct collusion scheme of things with the legacy of Co-Defendant herein (President Andrew Johnson ) system of chattel free slave laborWith the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) added bonus win “by any means necessary “hostile” “Ku Klux Klan” All of which is indicative of an agenda contrary to the full interests, rights, dignity, freedom, and equal protection under the law for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African-American within all of the Defendants herein (The United States of America) territory.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will further respectfully show before the “Honorable United States Federal Court” the Following current results of the “Agenda Activities” of Sarah Palin and Her political (Tea Party) caused in 2011 as following:<br />Jared Loughner attempted assassination of “Congress-Women” “Gabrielle Gifford” ended in fatal results due in large parts to attacks made upon (Gifford) votes for Human dignity to include the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) National Interest:<br /> Christina Taylor Green, age 9 was wheeled from a Church in a “Child –Size” Coffin to the “Mournful strains of bagpipes.<br /> United States Federal Justice “John Roll” also is being “Mournful” by the United States of America “in this fall-out shooting along with<br /> Dorothy Morris, 76,<br />Phyllis Schneck, 79<br />Dorwin Stoddard, 76<br />Gabe Zimmerman, 30;<br />Wounded are “Pam Simon”<br />
      • And “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords”.
      All of which Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the above-entitled Honorable U.S. District Court being executed under a “Killer Hostile Fraction Style” regardless of any “mental issues” being current in claims, <br />And in a “Direct Attack” for the “Special Efforts of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Among others) in (Gifford’s) Biblical movement(s) among others towards a “Real Re-Construction of the Defendant(s) (The United States of America) “New World” for the “full constitutional benefits to include the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American.<br />447.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Housing Project was built as human containment silos.<br /> Furthermore, “The Projects” bred poverty and squalor corralling The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American in High Rise Apartment building that were poorly maintained. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert furtherance’s before the Honorable Court that “The Projects”, and current poverty stricken Negro Neighborhoods effectively contained the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s), by design in a hostile environment, Under substandard conditions while the Defendant's (The United States of America) imposed chattel slavery with its legacy of poverty while the Defendant's (The United States of America) wealthy live a life of gluttony living in Castles and High End Dollar Real Estate.<br />448.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President Rutherford B. Hayes became President following the most contested elections in history wining by only one electoral vote.Part of the compromise that allowed President Rutherford B. Hayes to become President included the removal of federal troops from the Defendant's (the United States of America) South which effectively restored white supremacy to the region for the Behalf of the Defendants herein (The United States of America). 449.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that (President Hayes) removing the Defendant's (The United States of America) Troops by premeditated design to fully restore the legacy of Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson the founder of the Ku Klux Klan the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were placed in a tenacious position of living in fear of lynching, murder, rape, and violence and the denial Of first class citizenship through the passing of Jim Crow Laws which restricted the freedoms and liberties of citizenship and enforced by both the Defendant's (The United States of America) Civil authorities and the Co-Defendant's President Andrew Johnson's paramilitary White Hate Groups A/K/A the Ku Klux Klan.450.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) entertainment media (Industry) has perpetuated unflattering stereotypes of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans in all aspects of their lives. Frequently in role of servants and flunkies. Furthermore, The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) film industry has a long tainted history in depicting black people in the most negative manner.Their motives, in general, are rooted in nothing short of institutionally racist and white supremacist themes.Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black Actors and Actresses continue to have difficulty in finding serious roles and parts in movies and TV shows.<br />451.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) herein will respectfully show before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W Bush, along with the a/k/a “Brains” of the Administration,<br /> Vice-President Richard (Dick) Cheney whom all having cause great harm to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) through their position of control overseeing Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) well beings among other things:<br />To Wit Defendant(s) herein (The United States of America) in their combine Introduction of the “Chattel Slave Labor System with Plantations owners all of which having proceedings with quite “Deadly and Very Determent results Directly to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) “Longevity during, past, present, with emplacement design presently for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) future struggles for little expended (government) hand outs from the Defendants (The United States of America) <br /> While the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) supporting the Defendants herein (The United States of America) on “imposed taxes” at present and future “preallocated taxes”<br />All of which said Defendants (The United States of America) no less their after imposed by force no less upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the “Chattel Slave Labor System” to in fact build all of the Defendants (The United States of America) “Present New World”.<br />With (Defendant's) (The United States of America) in completely controlling Executive, legislation, Judicial Interchangeably parts of the Defendants (The United States of America) all by past and present design to impose (White) Supremacy over the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) with current dependency, UN-education, poor health, and completely living present and set for future in a squaller state of poverty in purgatory.<br />452.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) that the Vice President Dick Cheney<br />Began his political career as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger, eventually working his way into the White House during the Defendants (The United States of America) Presidencies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford administrations,<br />Vice President Dick Cheney served the latter as White House Chief of Staff. In 1978, (Cheney) was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming; he was reelected five times, eventually becoming House Minority Whip.<br /> Richard Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions over the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />453.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that while the Defendant's (The United States of America) Secretary of Defense began and smoothed the way for no bid contracts with his future employer Halliburton. <br />Furthermore, No bid contracts harmed the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) in that it denied Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the ability to bid for contracts.<br />454.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) corporation of Halliburton rewarded the Vice-President Richard Cheney with the position of CEO of Halliburton.<br />455.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver before the Honorable Court that when the Defendant's (The United States of America) 2000 stolen election and later the 2004 election placed President George W. Bush in Office the Vice-President, the Brains behind the President, Richard Cheney retired from Halliburton to assume the Defendant's (The United States of America) Vice-Presidential Office.<br /> Furthermore, the Vice-President Richard Cheney placed his considerable assets under a trust to avoid the appearance of impropriety.<br />456<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) the Vice-President Richard (Dick) Cheney held a secret energy summit with the Defendant's (The United States of America) White-house refusing to divulge the attendees who made recommendations for the Defendant's (The United States of America) the Administration's Energy Policy. <br />Soon after the secretive Cheney's Task Force report came out, things began rolling for the U.S. petroleum industry. The regulatory rulebooks for energy development on public property were rewritten with the intent making the entire world environment safe for oil business companies but not safe for everyone else. <br />457.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asserts before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) inept response to the Hurricane by the Bush/Cheney Administration resulted in suffering and lost by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />Furthermore, The Defendant's (The United States of America) Diplomats knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars.<br />Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.<br />458.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Bush/Cheney Administration's Environmental Protection Agency ruling that Carbon Dioxicide was not a polutant saved millions of dollar for the auto industry which would have had to install new polution controls on cars that they manufacture. Corporate profits above public safety of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />459.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that The Defendant's (The United States of America) rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, which has been accepted by nearly every other country drew worldwide criticism.<br /> Commercialism and greed overcome all common sense and thought for the welfare and future generations of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />460.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (the United States of America) President George W. Bush and his Vice-President Richard Cheney misled the Defendant's (the United States of America) people and did harm the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) by claiming that Iraq pocessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully and strongly assert before the Honorable Court Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) serving in the Armed Forced were wrongfully put in Harm's way by the Defendants herein (The United States of America).<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's aver before the Honorable Court that Iraq was on the agenda when the Defendant (The United States of America) Vice-President Cheney held his Energy Task Force Meeting.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff assert in support before the Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) reports focused on how to open up new domestic petroleum sources and on the need to expand and control the all-important Middle East oil production.<br />461.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney were bought and paid for by Big Energy Corporations.<br />Furthermore, Enron was Bush's top lifetime contributor until January 2004, when it was surpassed by MBNA Corp.<br />462.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) Commander-In-Chief George W. Bush, deployed Soldiers who were medically unfit for combat duty and that Army Doctors downgraded qualifications. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) that many of our brave service members are from minority groups including Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and therefore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were harmed.<br />463.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that President Bush canceled a health regulation that would have reduced allowable levels of arsenic in the Defendants (The United States of America) U.S. drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arsenic in drinking water causes cancer of the skin, lungs, bladder and prostate to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that arsenic also directly linked to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, anemia, and disorders of the immune, nervous and reproductive systems of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) by Defendants (The United States of America) actions. <br />464.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Energy Bill of 2005 gave tax breaks and subsidies to Big Oil Companies who were making big profits while the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were experiencing high unemployment rates and stagnant wages.<br />465.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (the United States of America) awarding of No Bid Contracts resulted in poor construction for facilities in Iraq and electrocution of members of our armed forces.<br />467.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show to the Honorable Court that Big Oil spent Millions of Dollars to support Defendants (The United States of America) President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the White House against the well being of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s), health, and financial interest.<br />468.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney used Republican Operatives to suppress the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) right to vote in several of the Defendant's (the United States of America) states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) basic right to vote were infringed upon.<br />469.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiffs assert to the Honorable Court that the details of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 reveal it to be a bill crafted as a Republican to please MBNA,<br />the largest single contributor to the Republican party.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court that the bill does not stem "Bankruptcy Abuse" nor does it protect Consumers,<br /> the bill rewrites bankruptcy laws to reduce the ability of those laws to protect Plaintiff and Plaintiff from predatory lending practices on the part of MBNA members, and to stiffen the capabilities of those corporations to collect from consumers already suffering from extreme financial hardships. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain this law victimizes and exploit the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) in its entire fashion.<br />470.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) President George Bush's political appointees at the Department of Labor a moved with unusual speed to push through in the final months of the Defendant's (the United States of America) President George W Bush administration a rule making it tougher to regulate workers' on-the-job exposure to chemicals and toxins. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) workers were wrongfully harmed health wise by changing the regulations related to chemicals and toxins by the Defendants (The United States of America).<br />471.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver before the the Honorable Court that Eight Years of purpose and with full intent in underfunding the Defendant's (The United States of America) Census Agency<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were harmed by an Agency ill-prepared to do the required Census which affects the eligibility of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Community for funding of projects that would benefit the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />472.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver before the Honorable Court that the Defendant(s) Matteo Fontana Placed on Leave from the Department of Education for Receiving $100,000 in Stock from a Student Loan Lender when the money could have been used to provided educational assistance to the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs.<br />473.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) President George Bush and his administration sent the Defendant's (the United States of America) Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) military forces to war without protective armor,<br />Furthermore forcing the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) in the “Military Forces” to dig through scrap heaps to up-armor their Defendants (The United States of America) vehicles for protection<br /> When taxes were provided by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) for the protection of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American in the protecting the Defendants (The United States of America) “War Interest.<br />474.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver to the Honorable Court that a Defendant (The United States of America) 2006 Government report found more than 1,000 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and others service Men and Women [just] in the U.S. Army alone have been billed a total of $1.5 million for damaged or lost equipment used in the line of duty.<br />Many Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) are facing the ruination of their credit.<br /> <br />475.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America)<br />President George Bush Laughs About not Finding WMDs<br />Further more the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Armed Military Personnel Die in Iraq under the Defendants (The United States of America) “Ridicule”.<br />476.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Military Personnel are current in suffering from symptoms that range from hyper awareness to angry outbursts,<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that (PTSD) is an anxiety reaction to traumatic events “War Events” It plagues up to but not limited to 10 percent of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) returning from “War”.<br />477.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendants (The United States of America) VA Hospital's Head of Mental Health Covered Up a Suicide Epidemic<br />Among the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan “Combat Duties” by The Defendant (The United States of America) President George W. Bush.<br />478.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert to the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Veteran's Administration Hospital under the Administration of the Defendant's (the United States of America) George W. Bush to wit:<br />On or about March 20, 2008 a Veteran Administration Hospital’s (PTSD) program coordinator sent an e-mail to a number of Veteran's Administration employees, including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist stating that due to an increased number of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's "compensation seeking veterans,<br />The Defendants (The United States of America)" VAMC staff should "refrain from giving a diagnosis of (PTSD) straight out in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)" and the Defendants (The United States of America) should "R/O [rule out] “PTSD"<br />And Defendants (The United States of America) VAMC staff consider a diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder" being wrongfully submitted for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) to avoid paying just compensation of Defendants (The United States of America) imposed (PTSD) due to “WAR”.<br />479.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)assert before the Honorable Court that under the Administration of the Defendant's (the United States of America) President George W. Bush that $12.7 Billion in cash from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, sent to Iraq during Bremer's watch between May 2003 and June 2004, was unaccounted for.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver before the Honorable Court that the money “supposed lost” in the Iraq War could have been used in educational, Health-care programs (among other things) to benefit the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br /> 480.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (the United States of America) Government under the Administration of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney Using "Terror Alerts" to manipulate both the media and the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and public at large to maintain their political power.<br />Furthermore, the Vice-President Cheney continued announcing WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction Destruction) as a means of “mind control” and using the “politics of fear”.<br /> a. Falsely claiming to have foiled “Terrorist Plots” only later to be revealed as fabricated hoaxes.<br />481.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) President George Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney through cronyism did govern in an inept manner, harming the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)<br /> a. Purged the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) of Professional Agents and replaced them with “Yes Men” who would provide only the answers that fit the Administration's Agenda.<br /> b. Attempted to appoint Harriet Miers, Bush’s Right-Hand Evangelical Counselor, Appointed to Supreme Court who had no judicial experience. Appointment was withdrawn after much debate.<br />Attempted to stack the court system with Religious Zealots.<br />482.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Justice Scalia refuses to Recuse Himself from Cheney Energy Case after having a gone a hunting trip with the Defendant's (The United States of America) Vice-President Cheney.<br />483<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) The President George Bush and Vice-President used secret communications system the RNC (Republican National Committee) Servers for Official Government Business to keep transactions out of the public's eyes.<br />484.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver before the Honorable Court that Health care economists said the drug benefit President Bush proposed for Medicare would be a bonanza for the pharmaceutical and managed-care industries, both of which are huge donors to Republicans. <br />485.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the court that throughout the Defendant's (the United State of America) President George Bush used National Security as an excuse to avoid Judicial Scrutiny and Punishment and used Executive Privilege to avoid Legislative Scrutiny. <br /> a. Used Security as a reason to undermine Labor Laws Security to Undermine Labor Laws and the Civil Service of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)<br />486.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert to the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George Bush Campaign committee engaged in caging during the campaigns of 2002 and 2004 effectively taking away countless votes of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans Military Personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br />487.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver to the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Tax policy of cutting taxes results in spending less on necessary maintenance on the Defendant's (the United States of America) infrastructure and resulting in human suffering by the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs by loss of life. <br />488.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will respectfully show the Honorable Court that all of the follow happened during the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush and Vice-President Cheney's Administration<br />Furtherance’s Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully Assert all of which was very indicative in all <br />Forms, fashions, instruments, documentations, presentations against the best interest of the Plaintiff and all Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans herein:<br />a. Presidential Signing Statements a Policy that Institutes Rule by Decree<br />b.No-Bid Domestic Soil Detention Camps Built by Halliburton<br /> c. Conspiring to establish permanent colonial control over 70% of Iraq's oil<br /> d. Selling Control Operations of 6 U.S. ports to the Dubai Port despite Objections from Congress and the Public namely Plaintiff and Plaintiff's<br />e. the Cost of a "Medicaid Reform" (Original Knight-Ridder Article in .DOC Format)<br />f. Tax Cuts Benefit Rich & Wealthy Most<br />g. Bush Defends Most Corrupt Congressman, Tom Delay.<br />h. Undermining and Attempting to Privatize Social Security.<br />I. Worst Jobs Creation Record Under Any President<br />j. 2005 Energy Bill Eviscerates Environmental Protections & Gives Tax Breaks to Big Oil Companies.<br />k. Bush Rejects One-Time Windfall Tax on Oil Industry.<br />l. Deregulation of FCC to Benefit Wealthy Via Appointment of Michael Powell<br />m. Cheney & Bush Declare Dictatorial Powers Expansions of Martial Law, Section 1076: Bush as Dictator<br /> <br />n. Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Knowingly Over-Charging Tax Payers, No Spending Limits in Iraq<br />o. Contractor Swindling<br />p. Bush’s Repeated Attempts to Cripple Children’s Health care<br />q. “Massive Failure” in Government Accountability for Billions Spent and Weapons Lost<br />r. KBR Contractors Indicted for War Profiteering<br /> <br />s. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Resigns in Disgrace But Not Before Gutting Department<br />t. KBR Using Cayman Islands as Tax Shelter to Avoid Paying Medicare, Social Security and Other Taxes<br />u. Bush Purposefully Leaving FEC Unfilled to Manipulate Campaign Finance Enforcement Agency<br />v. Private Contractors Ignore Spending Rules to the Tune of $8.2 Billion<br />w. Bush Financier Gets $80-Million Pentagon Contract despite Being an FBI Fugitive<br />Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Gives $500k to Low-Ranking Golfing Group Chaired by Bush Sr.<br />To include but not limited to the “Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)” will assert and unproblematic, at ease, stress-free & simply show before the Honorable Court that “Vice-President Dick Cheney”:<br />On or about a day on the heels of the January 8 shooting spree in Tucson, Ariz., which left six dead and 14 wounded as described in the Amend Complaint of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />Former Vice – President “Dick Cheney” attempted with inflicting terror among the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and others by usage of a device (IED) for bombing in a premeditated scheme of things for purpose to inflict a state of terror within the United States of America against the current Presidential Administration for political, personal and vindictive reasoning<br />(Dick) collectively with hidden confederates all tranquil with full intent on having a “very lethal”, full impact & potential intent to inflict “multiple innocent casualties. By such (IED) bomb."<br /> To cause such casualties Among the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African American to include but not limited to (among many others) non-race different of (Negro) Black African Americans others <br />All whom being innocent in nature and present during the Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane, Wash. Within the Defendant (The United States of America) on January 17, 2011 <br />For a “Mad Man Mastermind Killer design” by Former Vice President Dick Cheney establishment in collision, control of the “Oval Office” of the Defendants (The United States of America) for profit(s), and political gain(Among other things) reasoning to maintain continue wrongful, legal control, pattern and practices design in serious straightforward continue exploits over the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African American future life, duration, dignity, will, welfare, well being and respect as described herein the “Amend Complaint” of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) <br />For collective purpose Former Vice President Dick Cheney illegal hidden conspirer & Explosive agenda in attempt at “Civil War” being a device of re-establishments control of the “Oval Office” of the Defendants (The United States of America) as the past “legacy has dictated this patter and practices.<br />Former Vice President Dick Cheney “Hostile” institution in maintaining Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) be said described device herein for furtherance’s continue controlling state of purgatory poverty, control of modern enforcement of “Slavery” upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) throughout past (Negro) Black African American descendants difficult history <br />To the Present date Former Vice – President “Dick Cheney” attempted to achieve the same with usage of mental terror, and by usage of a explosive device (IED) bombing, in a premeditated scheme of things, for purpose to inflict a state of terror, within the United States of America to cause among other thing “Civil War” against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) life, rights, will, and peace and dignity<br /> Which such “Civil War” having already been inflicted enough throughout the past of the Defendants herein (The United States of America) “New Complicated World”.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Former Vice President “Dick Cheney” further attempt to re-engage the Defendants (The United States of America) into another state of being at “Civil War” in a criminal (Explosive) style engagement(s) for a anxious demand in light of (Dick Cheney) current “Health reasoning and Halliburton current civil (RICO) criminal penalties.<br /> All wrongfully in criminal action(s) of Former Vice-President Dick Cheney, thus being done and directed at the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (LIVES)… (Among others)...For both “personal, vindictive & political” purpose.<br />To include as device of “future advantage” of (RNC) Republican National Convention assets for smear during the 2012 Presidential Election Campaigns against the current (Obama) Administration.<br /> And using by further design against (Sarah Palin) Presidential “Tea Party” as the inflicting explosive “escape-goat/cow” party doing such Criminal “Explosive” (RICO) Actions.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show respectfully show the Honorable Court Former Vice – President “Dick Cheney” On or about Dec. 29, 2009 attempted bombing of an international passenger flight from Netherlands to United States, <br />Doing the same pattern and practices in the recent past thus putting the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks African American in the same criminal (RICO) pawn position as described in paragraph (488) (2), and (3) above with the unexpected possible loss of “Random Innocent Physical harm and Loss of Life”<br />For a continue maintaining “White Supremacy Agenda” already established in the Defendants (The United States of America) as (Man Man Mastermind Bomber Dick Cheney) continue being false in bogus apply pressure in claiming the Defendants (The United States of America) is un-safe by the current undersign Presidential (Obama) Administration while (Dick) engage his collective criminal intent on putting the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans (among others) lives at continue possible faith in a “Mental” state of terror of (Dick),<br />To include but not limited to Defendants (The United States of America) physical human occupants regardless of (“National origin”) suffer real-physical permanent injury(s), and “Physical losses of life due to “Future Deaths” through Continue Bombing (among others) “Hostile (RICO) Criminal Civil War Type-Killer Tactic(s)”.<br />489.<br />The Plaintiff (Hamilton) will show the Honorable Court that the impact of Big Oil in the Plaintiff's (Hamilton) own backyard in the Defendant's (The United States of America) city of Port Arthur, Texas.<br />Furthermore the Port Arthur Texas town is a slum comprising most of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans. The town has one asset, Pleasure Island, which was never developed in the Plaintiff's 40 years of life, in the largest oil production facilities Station in the the Defendant's (The United States of America). To include but not limited to Big Oil left a Dead Zone in The Gulf of Mexico.<br />490.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) Government the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches was designed not in substances for the beneficial Interest of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans from the very founding of the Country<br /> Whom all Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) arrival in the very start derive by way of kidnappings.<br />491.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) from the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 when the last grievance was removed from the Defendant's (The United States of America) Declaration of Independence<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) from that moment was criminalize to be “Slaves” and have not been granted equal protection under the law or full class citizenship to this very undersigned dated.<br />492.<br />Furtherance’s the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert strongly Before the Honorable Court that in the Preamble of the Defendant's (the United States of America) Constitution<br /> “To promote the General Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves”, meant the blessings of liberty for the Defendant's (the United States of America) “Whites only”.<br />493.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that there has been a pattern and practices of racism committed by the Defendant's ( the United States of America) racist decisions from past to present.<br /> All Defendants herein (The United States of America) Judges having “Absolute Immunity” that harmed and set back the Development of the Blessings of Liberty for the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negro) Black African-Americans.<br /> <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiffs will show the Honorable Court that during reconstruction there was no equal protection for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans who were victims of White Extremist Terrorist members of the Ku Klux Klan the Co-Defendant's President Andrew Johnson paramilitary organization that terrorized the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) through:<br />Mass Murder by Lynching<br />Mass Murder by Fire Squads<br />Death associated with Premeditated Arson<br />Drowning<br />Manslaughter<br />Kidnappings<br />Genocide<br />494.<br />Furthermore, The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court secured the interest of the White Supremacists lock stock and barrel<br />Through decisions creating a second class citizenship for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans by upholding Jim Crow Laws denying the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) equal protection under the law by limiting the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the right to vote and even to today with caging as seen in the 2000 and 2004 elections which targeted the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans.<br />495.<br />Throughout Reconstruction and throughout Jim Crow the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were denied justice by not being able to testify against a (White) person in The Defendants (The United States of America) municipal and state courts in many of the states. <br />498.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Asserts before the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-Americans have been singled out by discrimination in Employment, Education, Health Services, Veteran's Administration Services, and Voting in violation of the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Under the Law. <br />499.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that fair play in full and equal protection under all of the law was violated when the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson reversed the Special Field Order #15 which had been issued with approval by the War Department on or about January 15, 1865 which settled Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) on land to farm and the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson effectively removing the Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African-Americans off the land and returning it to White plantation owner.<br />Furthermore, The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that when the Defendant's (The United States of America) President Rutherford B. Hayes, as a part of a deal to be elected President, pulled the remaining troops from the South during reconstruction, and extremist white terrorists did inflict massive violence and destruction upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) lives and properties in violation of (among other things)equal protection of the law.<br />500<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver to the Honorable Court that all levels of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Court Systems have violated the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Equal Protection under the law.<br />Municipal Courts<br />Small Claims Courts<br />State Courts<br />State Appeals Courts<br />Federal Courts<br />Federal Appeals Courts<br />Supreme Court of the United States<br />501.<br />To include but notwithstanding the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver to the Honorable Court that all levels of the Defendant's (The United States of America)<br />Article 1. The Legislative Department<br />Article 2. The Executive Department<br />Article 3. The Judicial Department<br /> With the Defendants (The United States of America) having past and present continues violated the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Full Equal Protection under all of the laws.<br />With furtherance Defendants (The United States of America) violations of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)<br />Article 4. Relations between the States<br />Bill of Rights<br />Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, Petition<br />Searches and seizure<br />Rights of accused persons<br />Criminal Trials<br />Jury trials in common law cases<br />Reasonable bails against and punishment<br />Rights reserved to the people<br />Suits against States<br />Elections of president and vice-president<br /> 14. Protections, privileges of citizens of states<br />` 15. Voting rights of all races<br /> 17. Election of senators by the people<br />502.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Supreme Court failed to provide equal protection of the laws and in all substances and facts advance the cause for “White Supremacy” at the peril of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans among others:<br />a. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) when a slave petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him--also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to African Americans.<br />b. Pace v. Alabama (1883) In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary. The Court ruled in of the State of Alabama.<br />c. In the Civil Rights Cases the ruling in 1883 struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act allowing discrimination in the private sector.<br />d. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established separate but equal.<br />e. Cumming v. Richmond (1899)The Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard by establishing that if there was no suitable black school in a given district, black students would simply have to do without an education.<br />f. Ozawa v. United States (1922) A Japanese immigrant argued that Japanese were white to become a citizen of the Defendant (The United States of America) the argument was rejected. <br />g. United States v. Thind (1923) a case where an Indian-American who was a veteran in the Defendant's (The United States of America) Army used the same argument as Ozawa and was also denied citizenship.<br />h. Lum v. Rice (1927) a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22. Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school--but she was Chinese and she lived in Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school. Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local white school, but the Court would have none of it.<br />i. Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans. Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order before the Supreme Court--and lost.<br />j. Korematsu v. United States (1944) a explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during wartime.<br />503.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court that Children of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were innocent victims of the Slave trade. Like adults, children were unwilling participants within the slave trade that had a variety of sources.<br /> 504.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Children commonly found themselves enslaved as prisoners of warfare. When Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) men were killed in battle,<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)women and children, and the elderly became especially vulnerable to the Defendants (The United States of America).<br />Those who were not killed or ransomed were sold into slavery.<br />505.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that During the Middle Passage across the Atlantic that lasted anywhere from one month to three, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children(s) experienced extreme high mortality rates.<br />506.<br />Many Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children(s) succumbed to the illnesses especially yaws and intestinal worms.<br />507.<br />To include but not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court sicks factual evidences that Sometimes ill Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children were thrown overboard in the hope that their disease would not spread to the rest of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) being furtherances held complete in “hostage as slave cargo” for the Defendants (The United States of America) “New World”.<br />508.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show Respectfully before the Honorable Court that For those Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children who made it to the coast, they were taken to a factory, castle, or trading post where they were sold to Defendants (The United States of America) merchants who placed them in holding cells with other slaves, often being stripped of all their clothes, branded, and abused by Defendant (The United States of America) merchants.<br />509.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court Until the 18th century most Defendant (The United States of America) trading companies had little or no desire to purchase Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children from the coast of Africa,<br /> Furtherances Defendant (The United States of America) encouraged their (White) captains not to buy them.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff (s) Children were a bad risk, and many Defendant (The United States of America) planters and traders who purchased them lost money on their investment. Because Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children (especially the young and infants) were vulnerable to disease, the cost of transporting them lowered overall profits margins.<br />510.<br />Furthermore, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American children would not be able to perform hard labor or produce any offspring until they came of age. As a result, unless a planter or merchant requested a special order, children were extremely hard to sell in West Indian markets.<br />511.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) By the middle of the 18th century, planters economically dependent on the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) as slave trade<br />and Defendant (The United States of America) came to depend on Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children and youth.<br />As the abolitionist movement increasingly threatened the Defendant (The United States of America) Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) being made as “slave supply”,<br />512.<br /> The Defendant (The United States of America) planters adopted the strategy of importing younger Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) slaves who would live longer.<br /> As a result of the Defendant (The United States of America) acts of “Chattel” Free Labor System”, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African-American youth became an “very attractive asset” on the Defendant (The United States of America) “auction blocks” of the slave markets.<br />513.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court facts that the Defendant (The United States of America) to save their economic interests, Slave traders of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) modified their ideas of profit and risk and ideas of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) child worth by increase in the exchanged throughout the Atlantic World to the Defendant (The United States of America) “New World” to be wrongfully enslave for duration of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Children human existences.<br />`514.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that a good education, the first necessity of a free people was denied to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Children by the Defendant 's (The United States of America) state of Georgia for a century after the Civil War.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs assert Respectfully to the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black-Africans had obstacles placed in their path to education by the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Georgia's<br />(White) elite-dominated society which had little or no use for educated Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African Americans Children because education meant over-qualification for available jobs for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) children when they grew up.<br />515.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show Respectfully the Honorable Court that vigilantism, led by the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson's) paramilitary group the Ku Klux Klan, after the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Mississippi 1869 constitution was introduced.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's assert Respectfully Before the Honorable Court that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American Children’s schools became the terrorists’ target of choice<br />Because of their association with the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African- American assertiveness and Defendant (The United States of America) Northern (White) Instruction for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Africa America “True Freedom”. <br />516.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Court that public and private child welfare institutions in the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of Cleveland, Ohio have provided for The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American children often separately, always unequally, and sometimes punitively.<br />Furthermore The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that private orphanages that initially accepted small numbers of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African-American children barred them during the 1910s, and dependent (Negro) Black children consequently became the responsibility of public agencies, especially after the Defendant (The United States of America) “Great Depression”.<br />517.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show Respectfully to the Honorable Court that Orphanages remained racially segregated until the 1960s when integration took place.<br />Racial inequalities remained for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s Children) Plaintiff (Hamilton II) can simply illustrated by the disproportionate number of (Negro) Black children in an overcrowded, dangerous public detention facility in the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of Cleveland, Ohio.<br />518.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show Respectfully the Honorable Court that in 1991 a Gallop Poll found that, for the first time, more people in the United States approved of interracial marriages (48%) then disapproved (42%).<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show Respectfully the Honorable Court that the number of interracial married couples in the Defendant (The United States of America) has gone from 150,000 couples in 1970 to 1.1 million in 1994 and the number of children born out of interracial marriages jumped from 460,300 in 1970 to 1.9 million in 1994.<br />519.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that White Supremacist hate groups within the Defendant .nation (The United States of America) are particularly hard on White women having relations with The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-Americans. <br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant Andrew Johnson's installment of Ku Klux Klan primary was to inflict punishment on Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African-American men in the name of racial purity mainly through lynchings and murder, vicious treatment of mixed race children and White women were mercilessly beat.<br />520<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Utah leads the nation in prescriptions for anti-depressants, according to a recent study and has a high suicide rate.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the state's dominant Mormon culture, which demands much of its people, especially Defendant (The United States of America) (White) women has taken It's toll.<br />521.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that all Mormon girls in the Defendant's (The United States of America) state of Utah entering Interracial Marriages and relationships are Excommunication straight out no questions due to the Churches strong discouragement of Interracial Marriages especially Plaintiff and Plaintiff (Negro) Black African-American Males. Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black-Africans-Americans are being imprisoned at a higher rate than any other racial grouping<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) state of Utah is in direct violation of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) both equal protection under the law and Separation of Church and State.<br />522.<br />The Plaintiff will Respectfully show the Honorable Court the Plaintiff's (Louis Charles Hamilton) wife Rachael Hamilton was excommunicated from the Mormon faith upon her first (Negro) baby pregnancy which was which was crucified in the womb by her family prior to her other two children Shaunna and Billie-jean,;<br />523<br />Furthermore, Rachael prior to her marriage to Louis Charles Hamilton (The Plaintiff) had two children in another relationship with another (Negro) Black African-American which were stolen from her by her parents and the children's father.<br />524.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) will show the Honorable Court that his Wife (Rachel Hamilton) and the Plaintiff himself suffer the same faith as described above in paragraph (522) by her Mormon Family.<br />525.<br /> The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) will show the Honorable Court facts that the Plaintiff and his entire family heritage was considered “taboo”.<br />526.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) will show the Honorable Court that the Mormon faith does not believe in abortion, their faith is strongly and vehemency against Abortion which is why they (Mormons) have extremely large families and practice a don't ask don't tell policy on polygamy with multiple wifes for one man to this very date against the law and condoned by the Defendant (The United States of America).<br />527.<br />The Plaintiff will Respectfully show the Honorable Court as a means of family planning the Defendant (The United States of America) state namely Utah directly practice a form of genocide on Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negro Children<br /> By inflicting their Mormon religious system of crucifying the unborn (Negro) child in the womb of the (White) womans in accordance with their (Mormon) faith citing that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American and their off spring are evil and of the Devil.<br />528.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the total population of the Defendant's (The United States of America) namely state of Utah was according to the Defendant's (The United States of America) Census Report of July 2009 are as follows:<br />Total Population: 2,784,572<br /> Percentage of White 92.7<br /> Percentage of Black-Africans Americans 1.4<br />Percentage of Interracial Americans 1.7<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that In 2004, 61 percent of prison and jail inmates were of racial or ethnic minorities, the government said. e<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that an estimated 12.6 percent of all Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black men in their late 20s were in jails or prisons, as were 3.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.7 percent of white men in that age group, the report said as reported by the Defendant's (the United States of America) Government Report as reported by Desert News, Salt Lake, Utah.<br />529.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendants (The United States of America) namely the state of Utah is one of the most religiously homogeneous states in the Union with over 60% of Utahans are reported to be members of the Mormon Church, which exerts extreme influences on the Defendant's (the United States of America) state of Utah culture and daily life.<br />530.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court the Defendant's (The United States of America ) namely State of Utah’s attorney general, pro-polygamy activists and other experts estimate there are 40,000 people living in polygamous families or communities like this one across in the Defendant' (the United States) in the Western States.–with a largest portion of them residing right now in suburban Utah 2010.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert Respectfully before the Honorable polygamy sects in the Defendant's (The United States of America) Western Region, and in particular Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, where routinely girls as young as 13 are being married and hundreds of boys have been excommunicated, cut off from their parents, cast out of the community and put out on the street in an effort to reduce the elders’ competition for wives.<br />531.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (United States of America) namely state of Utah lawmakers have decided to move forward with a bill that would legalize polygamy.<br />Further more the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the Defendant's (The United States of America) current Utah Law (Article 3) states that ”polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.<br />”But according to Article 3, you can hold whatever religious beliefs you want. Utah will never prosecute you for your religious beliefs.<br />532.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that over the years, authorities have looked the other way with regard to polygamous behavior even though under current Utah Law bigamy is a felony of the third degree.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert Respectfully that all levels of Government of the Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Utah are unduly influenced by the Mormon Faith including:<br />Governor<br />State Legislature<br />State and Local Courts<br />Local Municipalities and City Counsels<br />Local and State Police.<br />534.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asserts Respectfully that the Defendant's (The United States of America) local authorities in the State of Utah police act as cultural police enforcing Mormon belief and practices upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black-Africans Americans based on the Defendant's (The United States of America) Mormons knocked-off version of scripture namely the Books of Mormon denying Equal Protection Under the Law and Freedom of Religion.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Mormon Faith was designed from it's inception to be a White Supremacist Religion as put forward by the Klu Klux Klan along with the Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson and with the Defendant's (The United States of America) using the local police force in the state of Utah to enforce Mormon (LDS) values against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Negro Black-Africans Americans to further make extinct the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Heritage.<br />535.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court Respectfully that it is merely a misdemeanor to steal a child from a parent if the person doing the 'taking' is one of the significant parents or grandparents in the child's life.<br />536.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that that the Court System in the Defendant's (The United States of America) State of Utah use all (White) and Predominantly Mormon Juries which (refer to 528) which shows an disproportionate rate of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black-Africans Americans in the Defendant's (The United States of America)namely the state of Utah court system.<br />537<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Judges enjoying Absolute Immunity and Prosecutors Qualified Immunity have allowed White Supremacists interest to being well enforce above and beyond understanding while the Defendant's (The United States of America) by design denied complete equal protection under the law and freedom from racist religion being severely inflicting on the well-being of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black-Africans Americans.<br />537The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Judges enjoying Absolute Immunity and Prosecutors Qualified Immunity have allowed White Supremacists interest to being well enforce above and beyond understanding against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) rights to equal protection of the Defendant (The United States of America) Civil/Criminal Laws While the Defendant's herein (The United States of America) enjoy by purpose of past design continue to denied complete equal protection under the law and freedom from racist religion being severely inflicting on the well-being of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black-Africans Americans within the Defendant (The United States of America) “New World”.538The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the founder of the Mormon Faith had 33 wives which is well-documented and the breakdown of ages of Joseph Smith's wives when he died are as follows:1. 11 were 14 to 20 years2. 9 were 21-353. 8 were in his age group 31-414. 2 were 41 to 515. 3 were 51 to 60The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that Sexual Attraction to and with under-aged females was inherent in the Polygamy as practiced by the Defendant's (The United States of America) Mormons and their Founder Joseph Smith to this date 2010. 539.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that Joseph Smith had an adulterous affair with Fanny Alger in 1833. Emma Smith caught them in the barn. Emma Smith saw them through the slats.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Further more assert before the Honorable Court that between 1833 and 1843, Joseph married 33 plural wives. Ten of these women were married to other men at the same time. Some of the women were just teen aged girls. 540.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert that polygamy in Nauvoo was lived in strict secrecy. Joseph Smith kept his marriages secret from his wife Emma Smith. Finally when Emma Smith consented to allow polygamy on condition that Emma Smith chooses the plural wife and unbeknown to her, she chose a woman that Joseph had already married. So another marriage was performed with a woman he had Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that Joseph convinced the women to marry him by telling them that if they did so, they as well as their entire family would receive eternal salvation in God’s highest kingdom.541.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court Respectfully that Joseph Smith lied about himself living in polygamy when In 1842, Joseph Smith wrote:“All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred and fulfilled.Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached for the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.”Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that at the time this statement was made, Joseph Smith was married to 19 wives.542.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert that Joseph Smith lied again in May 26th 1844 when he stated, “What it is a thing to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one.” At the time he made this statement, his harem was up to 38 wives.543.Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance will show the Honorable Court “Joseph Smith” stated the following: "For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent, obey the Gospel, and do right from this day forward. . . . Cain and his posterity must wear the mark, which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller’s soap every day, they cannot wash away God’s mark;The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were cursed with a skin of darkness … yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness, that not many generations shall pass away before they shall become a white and delightsome people; but it will take some time to accomplish this at best"544.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Mormons Settlers and Southern Paiute warriors on or about September 11, 1857 mass murdered And massacred the Defendant's (The United States of America) non-Mormon Settlers who were in bound for California at Mountain Meadows. The casualties consisted of 40 men, 30 women, and 70 children. The only survivors were 17 children below the age of 7.Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Territory of Utah's Territorial Governor Brigham Young was involved and attempted to cover up the complicity.545.Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will in 1857 when U.S. President James Buchanan, acting on false reports of a Mormon rebellion, sent an army of 2,500 men to ensure the authority of a new territorial governor, Alfred Cumming of Georgia.The confrontation was resolved without bloodshed, but it signaled a conflict not to be mitigated until after 1890, when the Church claim to officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage and adopted a less intrusive role in the political and economic life of Utah.70 children. The only survivors were 17 children below the age of 7.546.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court Respectfully that Brigham Young The Defendant's (The United States of America) Territorial Governor of Utah had 55 wives. Furtherance the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert Brigham Young had been an ardent supporter of polygamy and made many forceful speeches supporting the practice as God’s command. When Joseph Smith died in 1844, Brigham Young married between seven and nine of Joseph Smith's widows.547.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that stealing and kidnapings of Children (ref 539) occurs even to the present undersign date (ref 433).548.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that polygamous families and the Defendant's (The United States of America) Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints girls become property as plural wives and boys are expendable facing harsh exile.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that the teenage boys are cast out into a world that they are not prepared for and slip into alcoholism and drug addiction. Suicide is high among these young men who have been excommunicated from their religious upbringing and their families so that older men in the community can marry teenage girls in polygamous families.549.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court Respectfully that: UTAH in the years of 1998-2008 led the nation in abuse, rape, murder, and “CHILD ABUSE” AND “NEGLECT” to include but limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court the following:In 2005, Utah had 32,203 total referrals for child abuse and neglect. Of those, 21,052 reports were referred for investigation. In 2005, 8,173 children were substantiated or indicated as abused or neglected in Utah, a rate of 17.7 per 1,000 children, and representing a 3.4% decrease from 2004. Of these children, 20.7% were neglected, 14.7% were physically abused, and 19.3% were sexually abused. In 2005, 10 children died as a result of abuse or neglect in Utah.In 2005, 2,285 children in Utah lived apart from their families in out-of-home care, compared with 2,108 children in 2004. In 2005, 22.5% of the children living apart from their families were age 5 or younger, and 27.4% were 16 or older.Of the children in out-of-home care in 2005, 63.5% were white, 4.7% black, 22.5% Hispanic, 5.7% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 3.5% children of other races and ethnicities.550.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that Child Poverty and “Food Insecurity” is up see the following facts in the Defendant (The United States of America) in regards to (Utah):State Population 2,550,063Population, Children 742,556Under 18 State Poverty Rate 9.3%Poverty Rate, ChildrenUnder 18 12.6%Poverty Rate, Children 5-17 11.5%Poverty Rate, ChildrenUnder age of 5 13.8%Above listed statistics for 2006551.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed. To include but limited to the Defendant (The United States of America) state Namely (Utah)" also leads the “entire nation” in the use of narcotic painkillers such as codeine and morphine-based drugs. 552.“The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened [the] (Mormon )LDS's tax exempt status in 1970s over the Church's institutionalized racism. 553.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) asserts Respectfully before the Honorable Court that Children are removed wrongful from the Homes of the Defendant's (The United States of America) Non-Mormons (Whites) solely on the testimony of Mormon Men/Women before a Hostile Mormon run court system to increase their polygamous families, Violating equal protection under the law and separation of church, with falsely claiming abuse in the non-Mormon homes of “White Family” home stealing primary little girls to force into Polygamy as practiced by the Defendant's (The United States of America) Mormons and their Founder Joseph Smith to this date 2010. 543.The Plaintiff Respectfully will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Utah Department of Health reports that the leading cause of death for males between the ages 15-44 as suicide. Eleven of those were between the ages of 0-9 years of age. The rate of suicide in Utah for females between the ages of 15-44 is four times the national average. About 20 percent of successful suicides have occurred in the 13-21 year old age bracket. The Defendant (The United States of America) state of Utah Department of Health has declared an “epidemic”. 544.Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court For the past four decades now, Defendant (the United States of America) state namely “Utah” has ranked in the top ten for numbers of suicides in the entire nation.<br />545.Furthermore the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) herein himself is a victim as described to include but not limited to the Death of the Plaintiff “unborn child” by way of “Mormon Crucification of the Plaintiff mix (Negro) baby in the womb of the Plaintiff wife (Rachel Ann Hamilton II) in accordances with the (Twisted) “Mormon Faith”.With Plaintiff strong assert before the Honorable Court furtherance that said step-daughter(s) Shanna and Billie-jean (always) being used well as pawns chips against the Plaintiff and their own natural mother (Rachel) for control over the children to control the Plaintiff and Wife future in the Defendant (The United States of America) state namely (Utah).541.The Plaintiff asserts Respectfully before the Honorable that the Plaintiff's wife (Rachel Ann Hamilton) committed suicide by an over dose due to the actions as described herein. The Plaintiff himself was called by the Defendant's (The United States of America) Salt Lake Police Department to identify the body of his dead Wife..The Plaintiff further asserts Respectfully before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) local authorities in Salt Lake City did not covered up the details due to Plaintiff being owner of (Bluefin Inc.)but the family and the State of Utah did in fact cover up all records and details off the of death of (Rachel Ann Hamilton) so that they could have a proper Mormon burial excluded of the Plaintiff rights. 542.The Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court Respectfully that the Plaintiff was denied the natural right of a parent to raise his daughters; Chandra D. Hamilton (12/27/90) and Natasha C. Hamilton (12/31/91) in his faith, being a devout Roman Catholic.The Plaintiff further assert before the Honorable Court that his children have been denied a significant part of their natural heritage of having (Negro) Black-Africans American linage through their father and all that entails. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was denied any further contact with his daughters leaving the Plaintiff unable to protect his children from the abuse of the Mormon Culture and the pursuit of the blessings of Liberty in that the Plaintiff was denied Freedom to raise his daughters in the Roman Catholic Faith and was denied equal protection under the law within the Defendant (The United States of America).543.The Plaintiff Respectfully asserts to the Honorable Court that while Plaintiff was residing in the Defendant's (The United States of America) City of Salt Lake Utah, the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) and entire family encountered discrimination in Housing owned by a “Law Firm”. The Plaintiff was away from the Apartment when the Co-Defendant's (President Andrew Johnson) Klu Klux Klan present date full pledge member removed the door from the apartment and shaved the top and bottom of the door off for a total of 2” inches. After reinstalling the door with gaps on top and bottom, said (KKK) member proceeded to carved KKK on the Car” and then disabled the furnace in the dead of winter. Further more the Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that this action was to attempt to force the Plaintiff and family from the Apartment. The Plaintiff had two young children in the home (already mention) who became sick as the weather was 18 below zero during winter months. While in the Defendant's (the United States of America) Court in Salt Lake City the person responsible for this action swore under oath that he was in fact a full pledge Klu Klux Klan member and hire to inflict all as described in paragraph (543) with in the Defendant (The United States of America) State namely “Utah in 1993.544.The Plaintiff asserts before the Honorable Court that while gainfully employed in the Defendant's (The United States of America) namely in “Salt Lake City” the Plaintiff worked as a Brick Mason for an Employer who did not have Workers Comp. The Saw which is used to saw bricks did not have the appropriate safety equipment cover shield and the Plaintiff lost the tip of his middle right finger and the Plaintiff suffer wrongful lost which the Defendant (The United State of America) state namely “Utah”cover up the fact the employer had no workmen coverage or fail to make payment thereofand the (State of Utah)re-installed said employer to avoid civil action on some State impose settlement structure the Plaintiff had to insure for wrongful dismemberment.545The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (the United States of America) namely the state of Utah and the LDS Church is a sovereign nation within the Defendant ( The United States of America) having it's own completely government control over all functions of “Human Life”<br />546.<br />The Plaintiff will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) state namely Texas, In the District Court 215, Harris, County To Wit:<br />The Judge (Steve Kirkland) ruled erroneously that the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) was not indigent to protect (White) Defendant in suit in common law and further more (Judge Kirkland) refused to call the Plaintiff by his proper name stating to the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) “what you doing in my court room” with total disrespect..! for the Plaintiff.<br />Furthermore, the Plaintiff will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendants ( Harry C. Arthur and the Marine Building, LLC) referred to the Plaintiff as Homeless in original complaint when the erroneously order was rule and the Plaintiff was chastised by Judge Steve Kirkland for not being present at a hearing by submission, when all hearings by Honorable Court of Law are rule in Honorable Court Chambers and parties are not present, pursuant to law. <br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) asserts that his rights to Equal Protection Under the Law has been violated with Plaintiff among other thing already declare Indigent by the Honorable Federal Court as described above when this bogus ruling was apply, and all proper facts to support the same were in advance filed duly proper before the 215th Harris County District Court, in Houston Texas.<br />547.<br />The Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) state namely North Dakota, the Defendant (The United States of America) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHT CIRCUIT ruled in error and in violation of the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) Equal Protection of the Law in that Plaintiff Attorney of record was working fully for prosecution whom Hid from the Plaintiff, and cuss the Plaintiff out, to include the good old (Lilly-White) boys club over rule the Honorable Magistrate Karen K. Klein orders granting the Plaintiff full rights to conduct a deposition of public defender named Mark Beauchene the crooked defense Attorney being protected by Absolute Immunity to enforce white supremacy.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court the Plaintiff previously sue the entire Cass County Courthouse and Cass County government in Fargo ND, and the NAACP in a reverse discrimination suit for the full protection of not only the Plaintiff legal rights to counsel as outline in the original complaint, but every citizen within the Defendant (The United States of America) state namely (North Dakota)<br />2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9027,*;34 Fed. Appx. 508<br />Louis Charles Hamilton, II, Appellant, v. Wold Johnson Law Firm, Appellee.<br />No. 01-3998<br />UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT<br />34 Fed. Appx. 508; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9027<br />April 26, 2002, Submitted<br />May 10, Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.<br />DISPOSITION:   Affirmed.<br />COUNSEL:   LOUIS CHARLES HAMILTON, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Fargo, ND.For WOLD JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Defendant - Appellee: David Scott Maring, MARING & WILLIAMS, Bismarck, ND.<br />JUDGES:   Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.<br />OPINION   PER CURIAM.Louis Charles Hamilton, II, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court n1 for the District of North Dakota, granting summary judgment for defendant Wold Johnson Law Firm in Hamilton's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law action. Hamilton served a prison sentence after he entered an Alford n2 plea to a charge of terrorizing. In the instant complaint, Hamilton claimed that one of defendant's attorneys--Hamilton's former criminal defense attorney, a contract public defender named Mark Beauchene--violated his constitutional rights and committed legal malpractice by conducting the victim's deposition outside his presence and ignoring his written  [*2]  instructions on what to do in the criminal case. For reversal, Hamilton argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without granting his numerous discovery requests, and that the court's grant of summary judgment was substantively erroneous. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. 2North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970). - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -We need not consider Hamilton's arguments relating to the denial of his discovery requests, as he did not appeal the magistrate judge's n3 orders denying these requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (party may object to magistrate's nondispositive order within 10 days, or forfeit objection). We find, moreover, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the claims were ripe for summary judgment. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir. 1997).  [*3]  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota. - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, including its interpretation of state law. See Adams ex rel. Harris v. Boy Scouts of Am.-Chickasaw Council, 271 F.3d 769, 775 (8th Cir. 2001); Kunferman v. Ford Motor Co., 112 F.3d 962, 965 (8th Cir. 1997). Having carefully reviewed the record before the district court, we agree with the court that Hamilton's § 1983 and state-law claims failed. Hamilton could not state a § 1983 claim against the Wold Johnson Law Firm unless Wold Johnson Attorney Beauchene conspired with state actors. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 70 L. Ed. 2d 509, 102 S. Ct. 445 (1981) (public defender does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing traditional functions as counsel to defendant in criminal proceedings); Deck v. Leftridge, 771 F.2d 1168, 1170 (8th Cir. 1985)  [*4]  (per curiam) (public defender is not immune from § 1983 liability if attorney conspired with other state actors to violate plaintiff's constitutional rights). Hamilton, however, failed to submit evidence that there was any conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. As for his legal-malpractice claim, Hamilton failed to submit evidence (beyond his conclusory allegations) showing that if Beauchene had followed his instructions, and had refused to accept the prosecutor's condition that the victim be deposed without Hamilton being present, the criminal proceeding would have terminated more favorably to him. See Dan Nelson Constr., Inc. v. Nodland & Dickson, 2000 ND 61, 608 N.W.2d 267, 271 (N.D. 2000) (when it is alleged that attorney negligently failed to perform some act on behalf of client, plaintiff must allege and prove performance of act would have benefited client).Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Hamilton's motion to amend his complaint.<br />548.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff will Respectfully show the Honorable Court that Greedy Corporate Greed was behind The Defendant's (The United States of America ) Senator John McCain that forced the relocation of the Dineh Tribe from their lands which had been their lands since 1500.<br />Furthermore as the Dineh were removed from their farms by the "Relocation Commission" authorized by the US Senate at the behest of the revisions to the Public Law 93-531 introduced as S.1973-1 (1996 Partition) and S.1003 (2001 and 2005 accelerated removal of the Dineh by amendment) by Senator Senator John McCain, expanded Coal Mining Rights to their lands were granted to Peabody Western who with Bechtel Corp, have been mining the lands formerly occupied by the Dineh, and piping the coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada, which serves the Las Vegas and Reno areas power needs over the interest of the Dineh farmers who were mostly elderly tribesmen.<br />549.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Big Oil companies actions affected the trucking industry because of the higher fuel had to raise the cost of everything transported of the the Defendant's (The United States of America) which has caused economic hardship on the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />550.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will respectfully show the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) Big Oil Companies worked in concertto collect fuel surcharges claiming they needed them to continue in existence. The end result was excessive profits at the expense of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans.<br />551.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (the United States of America) Oil Companies are Independent owning their own equipment meaning they have less overhead. Yet they complained that they needed to raise the cost for their goods and services.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Big Oil Companies showed record highs in 2008 and 2009 for each quarter With record high profits the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the big oil companies wrongfully raise gas prices in a current price fixing scheme with the Defendant (The United States of America) President George W. Bush and was part of the corporate culture of greed which has harmed the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs.<br /> 552.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George Bush's Administration's Energy Policy was written by oilmen for oilmen at the Defendant's (The United States of America) Vice President Richard Cheney's secret Energy Task Force Meeting which did not include other interest groups such as environmentalists or conservationists.<br />553.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Energy Bill passed shortly after the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush was elected in 2000 effectively deregulated the Oil Industry saving them from expensive safety measure and studies.<br />The Plaintiff further asserts before the Honorable Court that Big Oil Companies receive tax breaks for exploration for and development of new oilfields at a time when the same Defendant's (The United States of America) are making record profits.<br />554.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that Lax Regulations Enforcement under the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush was a contributing factor which contributed to the cause of the Deep Water Horizon Explosion that affected the economies Gulf Communities, the livelihood of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Black African Americans working in both the oil industry and the Tourist Industries along the Defendant's (The United States of America) Gulf Coast Region.<br />555.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant's (The United States of America) President George W. Bush before running for Governor of the Defendant's (The United States of America) made a lot of money off of three business deals. In each one, his contribution is hard to perceive, yet he walked off with hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in deals arranged by his father's political cronies<br />Texas Rangers baseball team, which he sold in 1999 for a huge profit1. the sale of Junior's struggling oil company, 2. Junior's sale of oil stock just before the Gulf War, and 3. (he paid $600,000, and sold for $14 million). (Insider Trading)<br />556.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that general pattern here is just as important as the details.<br />George W. Bush did not work in his business career that can clearly be called "excellent" or even "solid." The money he made is tangential to his efforts at best -- the oil companies lost a great deal of money during his tenure, and the Rangers cut a lot of corners -- which makes the cronyism that much more suspicious.<br />557.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) state It's not just that one or two of George W. Bush's deals look funky; every major business deal he has been involved with included wealthy supporters of his father, and many of those investors later received favorable treatment from either the federal government under George Bush, Sr. or the administration of George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas. <br />558.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert before the Honorable Court that the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the removal of the basis of the Dollar was done to benefit the rich white bankers at the expense of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />559.<br /> Cause of Action<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's reincorporate everything from paragraph (1) through paragraph (558) as fully set-forth herein in for cause of damages:<br />Kidnapping for Profit for slavery through (Chattel Free Labor System.<br />Slavery<br />
      • Murder for Hire Scheme in Violation of United States
      • For Presidency of the United States highest Office to Wit:
      • In that the Co- Defendant Andrew Johnson conspire in a murder for Hire Scheme of President Abraham Lincoln to control office of the Presidency of the United States for Profit by the extreme and outrageous acts and actions of enslavement of Negro
      • In that Co- Defendant Andrew Johnson conspire in Murder for Hire scheme of President Abe Lincoln” for Profit
      • In that Co-Defendant President Rutherford B. Hayes acted in the same manner as Co-Defendant President Andrew Johnson to exploit the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans for free labor profiteering to wit:
      • Placing the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) life at great loss for greed and to end Reconstruction of the Defendants (The United States of America) and Co- Defendant (President Rutherford B. Hayes) did so in the Compromise of 1877
      • In that Former Vice President “Dick Cheney” of the Defendants (United States of America) did in all facts “Mastermind” a “Live Bombing Attempt” During the (MLK) Parade in Washington State of 2011
      • All for “Political, Personal”, and “Very Vindictive” reasoning directed at the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans (Among many other innocent lives) in a scheme of things for profit(s) & National political (Sick) Agenda reasoning to include,
      • Vindictive personal fall out reasoning involving disaster(s) by among other things namely (Halliburton) in which (Dick Cheney) enjoying the usage of said Intimidations, Murder attempts, and Terrorizing by actual “Live Bombing Threats” in 2011 within the Boarder of the Defendant (The United States of America.
      In That Sarah Palin and Her political (Tea Party) caused unhealthy “Rhetoric in declaration of another political party agenda is illegitimate (among with other metaphors causing, serious harm injuries and complete losses of lives in the Defendant (The United States of America) state namely (Arizon) in 2011 as following:<br />(Vindication) of Jared Loughner attempted assassination of “Congress-Women” “Gabrielle Gifford” ended in fatal results due in large parts to attacks made upon (Gifford) votes for Human dignity (Health care) to include but not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) African American “National Interest” within the Defendant (The United States of America) which:<br /> Christina Taylor Green, age 9 was wheeled from a Church in a “Child –Size” Coffin to the “Mournful strains of bagpipes.<br /> United States Federal Justice “John Roll” also is being “Mournful” by the United States of America “in this fall-out shooting along with<br /> Dorothy Morris, 76, (DEAD)<br />Phyllis Schneck, 79 (DEAD)<br />Dorwin Stoddard, 76 (DEAD)<br />Gabe Zimmerman, 30; (DEAD)<br />Wounded are “Pam Simon”<br />
      • And “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords”.
      • All Defendant(s) herein and their agents committed Mass Murder by: Hanging, Fire Squads, Premeditated Arson, Drowning, Murder, Battery, Mutilation, Intimidation, Threat, Terrorizing, Robbery, Harassment
      • Manslaughter
      • Voluntary Manslaughter
      • Terrorizing and Intimidations by “Live Bombing Threats”
      • Genocide
      • Crucification
      • Murder Hire Scheme for Profit in the death of Abraham Lincoln for slavery
      • Murder for Hire Scheme for Election in deaths by (Rutherford Hayes)
      • Multiple Schemes and Patterns to commit among other things:
      (a) Mail and Wire Fraud<br />(b) Bank Fraud, Computer Fraud<br />Extortion under color of official Right-Hand<br />The Obtaining of Property from the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) with usage of threats and Physical Violence<br />Fraud by non-disclosure<br />Defamation of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's<br />Slander of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's<br />Libel of Plaintiff<br />Breach of Fiduciary Duty<br />Wrongful Death<br />Breach of Contract<br />Malicious Prosecution Civil<br />Malicious Prosecution Criminalize<br />Injury to Personal Reputation<br />Impeaching Honesty<br />Injury to Business Reputation<br />Imputation of Crime, Disease and Sexual Misconduct<br />Custody Interference<br />Child Kidnapping<br />Gross Negligence (Medical and Education)<br />Negligence (Medical and Education)<br />Theft of Property<br />Theft of Taxes<br />Misrepresentation<br />Theft of Services<br />Abuse of Power<br />Abuse of Judicial Absolute Immunity<br />Abuse of Official Immunity<br />Aiding and abetting to commit A Criminal Enterprise in Racketeering against the rights, dignity and will of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s)<br />Securities and Money Fraud<br />Money Laundry<br />Price Fixing<br />Embezzlement of Pension, Welfare, Retirement Fund<br />Financial Institution Fraud<br />Obstruction of Justice<br />Obstruction of Criminal Investigation<br />Conspiracies to pursue the same Criminal Objective<br />Violation of Equal Protection under the Law<br />Violations of the 1 st Amendments<br />Violations of the 4 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 5 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 6 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 7 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 8 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 10 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 12 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 13 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 14 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 15 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 17 th Amendments<br />Violations of the 19 th Amendments<br />Actual, accumulative, compensatory, consequential, continuing, expectation damages, foreseeable, future, land, hedonic, incidental, indeterminate, reparable, lawful, treble under (RICO), proximate, prospective, special, speculative, substantial, punitive, and permanent damages<br />Declaration Judgment by a “Jury” that each and every claim, accusation, assertion, contention and charges in all allegations as described fully herein against all Defendants, and their agents being entry into the action of this cause in full favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black Africa Americans<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Awarded Compensations Claims for “serious past, present ,and future Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Mental Anguish being imposed, tariff and levy both past, current, and future to include but not limited to for all of the Defendants extreme and outrageous acts as described herein:<br /> And they also Called Us “Niggers” Too... “Your Honor”..!<br />
      • 560.
      • Conclusion
      • From the beginning of the settlement of the colonies in North America (New World) there has been a dark blot that has plagued the Continent. That dark blot has been the abuse of People of Color. The ugly reality of enslaving people based on socio-economic status and the color of a person skin for the benefit of the privileged few. The wealth of the nation based on the blood and sweat of the many to profit the white wealthy landed classes.
      The (Negro) Black African American has suffered the most from the system put in place by the white rich and the powerful. From the very beginning the (Negro) Black Africans who were snatched from their native lands and stripped of their culture, religion, and families and exported to the Colonies and States of the United States were forced into a servant role.<br /> First with the Indentured system which gave the (Negro) some hope of freedom at the end of the contract were used and abused as free labor to build the Plantations which produced wealth for the white elites. <br /> Second, the (Negro) Black-Africans Americans were then classified as chattel and declared property by the White Supremacists with no legal rights under the law. <br />Third, (Negro) Black-Africans Americans were treated as second class citizens by the White Supremacists who controlling the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch undermined the intent of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. <br />Since the Days of the Revolutionary War there was a struggle concerning the status of the (Negro) Black-Africans American and the ending of the Peculiar Institution of Slavery and Oppression. <br />When the citizens of Boston held the Boston Tea Party it was against Taxation without Representation. The (Negro) Black-Africans American has not had a seat at the table.<br /> Furthermore when Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers did not include the last grievance that condemned the “British King” for allowing the continuance of trading Black-Africans in the Colonies (which should be restored to the Declaration of Independence) to appease the White Supremacist Plantation Owners in the South.<br />With no or minimal representation after the Civil War and civil rights stomped on by all levels of the Federal and State Governments the (Negro) has been expected to pay taxes with little or no say in how it is spent.<br />Even the rights of Equal Protection under the Law and Separation of Church and State as expressed in the Constitution (Another Document where there were no Negroes at the table) have not been enforced.<br />The US government has been dominated for most of its history by White Supremacist politicians and the White Wealthy Political Classes who have looted and squandered the country of its wealth. <br />One only has to look at the Iraq, a War that was fought to benefit Big Oil Interests and the loss of 9 billion dollars cash to see the looting of the nation while our infrastructure falls apart, our educational system dropping behind the ranking of other developed countries, and a health-care system that is beyond the reach of many of our citizens.<br />
      • Since the claim reconstruction for the behalf of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) there has been no final resolution or direct actual compensation to address wrongs done to countless generations of Negroes. Even at the time of Emancipation in the 1860's depending on what state Black-Africans Americans lived there was no representation at the bargaining table.
      • There has been no real or substantial apology for the wrongs committed on and to the Black-Africans American past or present.
      • At the end of the Civil War a Standing Order was issued known as 40 Acres and a Mule by the War Department with approval of President Abraham Lincoln. The order was issued for the benefit of whites with no place at the bargaining table for Black-Africans American. It established the role of Black-Africans Americans as Agricultural Laborers working in the fields.
      • It had no provisions for educating the Freed Black African-Americans for other roles in society such as the Professional Roles of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and business professionals all essential for the advancement of the Black-African American Community.
      • The end result was theft of the land and a community of Americans that were abused and facing atrocities perpetuated by their white supremacist neighbors.
      • 561.
      Awards<br />41.1millionAs of July 1, 2008, the estimated population of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) black residents in the United States, including those of more than one race.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) seek Actual, accumulative, compensatory, consequential, continuing, expectation damages, foreseeable, future, land, hedonic, incidental, indeterminate, reparable, lawful, treble under (RICO), proximate, prospective, special, speculative, substantial, punitive, and permanent damages and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Mental distress Damages<br />In excess of (6) Six Trillion Dollars, divided 41.1 million into the final judgment entered into record per Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) seeks “treble damages” under (RICO) Statue against all defendants herein or an amount in excess of Eighteen Trillion Dollars with interest incurred since the date of the Declaration of Independence (1776). <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) seek the full restoration of the Last Grievance as written by Thomas Jefferson to the effect the Declaration of Independence being reinstalled in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) seek a “special public print apology” by the Defendants (The United States of America) on their own behalf and for the behalf of all of the acting agents and confederates for all as wrongfully described herein.<br />The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seeks in addition to the above fore-mention damages awards of direct, actual, compensatory, damages to the Pro Se Plaintiff for the wrongful loss his Plaintiff wife (Rachel), two children (Chandra and Natasha) and for the wrongful death of Plaintiff “natural unborn child” as described herein<br /> In the amount of (80) Million dollars with interest incurred since 1989 for the Defendant (The United States of America) action in Utah.<br /> The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seeks Exemplary damages for the loss his wife, two children and the wrongful death of his unborn child treble Damages under (RICO) statue in the amount in excess of $240,000,000. <br /> ($240 Million Dollars) with interest incurred from date of injury 1989.<br />any Attorney and all court cost and Legal Fees;<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's reincorporate everything from paragraph (1) through paragraph (558) as fully set-forth herein in for Declaratory Judgment against all described Defendant(s) herein.<br />562.<br />Parties<br />Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton), His Descendants from Slavery, His Entire family and all of His Children.<br />Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans Descendants from Slavery, Their Families, and their Children)<br />Defendant (The United State of America)<br />Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson)<br />Co-Defendant (President Rutherford B. Hayes)<br />Respectfully Submitted By:<br /> _______________________________<br />Louis Charles Hamilton II<br /> Pro Se Plaintiff<br />In “Loving Memory” of Rachel, Chandra, Natasha, Aunt Billie, Grandmother (Mommie)<br /> And “Sherlock Holmes”.<br /> To include but not limited to the wrongful loss of Life in “Arizona”….xoxox!<br />