(1888PressRelease)
May 11, 2007 - The U.S. Supreme Court now has the case under review. Will the highest court uphold the law or ignore the law so guilty judges can go free?
Judges in the United States have immunity from civil and criminal liability for acts they commit while they have jurisdiction over a case. However, when actions are committed without jurisdiction, there is no protection from civil lawsuits or criminal charges arising from deprivation of civil rights.
In the case of Attorney Patrick Muhammad, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, The Attorney General’s Office, and other parties now face a $250,000,000 lawsuit in the United States District Court of Maryland, and they do not have immunity. There is no controversy of law. The state officials and other parties acted without any legal authority, jurisdiction, justification or excuse. All the rules, statutes and cases from every federal court including the U.S. Supreme Court clearly favor Muhammad. However, for nearly six months, Muhammad has been unable to practice law because federal officials have resorted to simply ignoring and refusing to enforce the law in a case where prominent judges can easily lose their jobs, go to jail, and be held civilly liable. Muhammad’s case, which is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is a case which is really about corruption and political favors shielding guilty parties.
Muhammad was pending an attorney discipline case before the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The prosecution of the case against Muhammad was racially motivated, involved repeated violations of Maryland rules and federal law by the state agency instigating the prosecution, and Muhammad asked the Court of Appeals of Maryland to enforce the law. However, the state of Maryland failed to serve the very factual and legal conclusions of law upon Mr. Muhammad, which were the very basis of the prosecutory proceedings. Therefore, although Muhammad could prove the state agency prosecuting him was falsifying testimony and purposefully omitting exculpatory evidence, because he was denied service of the nature and extent of the charges against him, he would be permanently denied the opportunity to confront and defend himself against the false allegations, without the intervention of the court.
Muhammad filed several motions for relief before the Maryland Court, however, eventually, he was forced to seek relief in the U.S. District court, by removing his case to federal court. On November 22, 2005, the U.S. District Court removed the case from the jurisdiction of the state court, and ordered the Maryland Court of Appeals not to proceed any further in the case against Muhammad, including ruling on the motions for relief pending before the state court, doing research on the case or rendering any decision. However the Maryland Court of Appeals purposefully disobeyed the federal court, and in retaliation against Muhammad, on December 14, 2005, issued an illegal order purporting to prevent Muhammad from ever practicing law in the future.
After approximately two weeks, Muhammad, who was representing himself, won a victory when the U.S. District Court issued an order dated December 30, 2005. The federal court ruled the order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland was illegal and void from the very beginning because the Maryland court had no jurisdiction over Muhammad’s case. Indeed the state court had no jurisdiction to do any act, unless and until the federal court sent the case back to Maryland state court. However, even if the federal court sent the case back to the state court, 28 U.S.C. section 1446 from the U.S. Congress and binding case law from every federal court in the United States, including the U.S. Supreme Court, noted the voided opinion would never be valid. The state of Maryland could only potentially retry Muhammad. The state could never re-instate the original void order, just as a not-guilty verdict can never be changed to guilty verdict.
However, the Court of Appeals of Maryland refused, yet again, to obey the federal court order and on December 6, 2006, already having wrongfully slandered Muhammad almost a year previous by releasing an opinion rooted in false and malicious facts, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, while Muhammad’s case was pending review before the U.S. Supreme Court, simply re-instated the void order against Muhammad.
Now, Muhammad has the lawsuit pending and has requested the Department of Justice and the FBI to bring charges against the Maryland Judges, federal officials, the Attorney General’s Office and other parties who have assisted in violating federal law. Federal officials are afraid and unwilling to enforce the valid court order. Muhammad has suffered nearly six months of being wrongfully prevented from practicing law by a void court order, merely because federal officials who could enforce the law, are providing shelter to their state judge colleagues and political friends, and are taking the position that the U.S. Supreme Court should act.
Muhammad also recently learned some troubling facts which raise serious questions about the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to take immediate action. Muhammad’s case is not just about actual fairness from the judiciary, but the appearance of fairness. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts apparently represented the State of Maryland against Microsoft, prior to his assuming his judicial assignment. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts spoke before the Maryland Judiciary during a recent convention, participated in a private reception which included members of the Court of Appeals Judges and was given small gifts by Maryland Chief Judge Robert M. Bell. Chief Judge Bell is being sued by Muhammad. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito both served on a committee with the wife of another Judge who is a part of the lawsuit.
The wife, also a judge, would have made recommendations to the Judiciary Committee in its vetting process for both the aforementioned judges to be placed on the U.S. Supreme Court. None of this information and potential for conflict of interest, was ever revealed to Muhammad. The State of Maryland has never responded to any filing in the U.S. Supreme Court, argued its prosecution of Muhammad was not racially motivated or disputed any facts entered into the record by Muhammad. Therefore, the totality of the evidence seems to suggest the state officials are supremely confident of their victory, without ever saying a word or filing a piece of paper in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ultimately, Muhammad’s case and ordeal is a horrific reminder that laws are made to be broken or ignored. If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to enforce or uphold the law, Muhammad’s lawsuit will be dismissed and the potential criminal charges for the guilty parties can be avoided by trial judges at the lower court levels who are taking the approach, “if the Supreme Court isn’t going to uphold the law, why should we?”
###
