ANALYSIS OF CASES RELEVANT TO 2AM ISSUES

Peter Mancus
Fri, 10 May 2002

The cases selected below for discussion are relevant to the issues and topics discussed herein. It is submitted that these cases, from California, sister states and Federal courts, are representative of how various judges have construed [interpreted and applied] relevant law.

Judges reveal [some of] themselves through their written case decisions; therefore, it is strongly suggested that when you read these cases, you ask yourself these questions:

If we are living under the control of Judicial Despots who do not enforce the peoples' rights, how long should the people tolerate this situation? What should they do about it? Is this situation insufferable?

By raising these questions, I am not accusing any judge of intellectually dishonesty, nor academic dishonesty, nor fraud, nor intentional wrongdoing, nor professional incompetence, nor treason, nor conspiracy, nor anything else derogatory. I am simply urging people to read what follows critically and to think carefully.

I do not have solid evidence to support answers to many of these questions. I do, however, have my tentative impressions and opinions. Hence, I decline to provide an answer to these questions. For now, I am content to have simply made a selection of cases, to have arranged them chronologically, to quote from them, and to share my own analysis of the cases and what the judges wrote. In this manner, I address the evidence--the evidence that came from the judges' minds, pens, and published decisions. The only evidence I have about any judges' intent or competence or integrity is indirect at best, as evidenced by the judges' decisions. Hence, I leave it to the reader to read the summaries of these cases, the quotations attributable to the judges who wrote these decisions, and my remarks. I am content to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.


On the other hand, I stress the following:

Judges are mortals. They are not angels. They are not super human beings blessed with superior, infallible intellect, devoid of all banal human qualities and frailties. They are subject to the Seven Deadly Sins, and everything else, just like all non- judges are. They are not pure, perfect, neutral, legal decision-making, thinking machines with 100% pure hearts and awesome intellectual powers devoid of emotions. Unfortunately, too many judges prove to be major disappoints, and they discredit themselves and the bench and, in the process, they have harmed the nation.


Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 10 U.S. 87
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 17 U.S. 316
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) 2 Littell 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251


Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833) 32 U.S. 243
Aymette v. The State (1840) 21 Tenn. 154
State v. Reid (1840) 1 Ala. 612
State v. Buzzard (1842) 4 Ark. 18
South v. State of Maryland for use of Pottle (1855) 59 U.S. 396
Dunne v. People (1879) 94 Ill. 120
Presser v. State of Illinois (1886) 116 U.S. 252
Robertson v. Baldwin (1897) 165 U.S. 275
City of Salina v. Blaksley (1905) 83 Pac. 619
Ex Parte Luening (1906) 3 Cal.App. 76
People v. Camperlingo (1924) 69 Cal.App. 466
Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) 277 U.S. 438
United States v. Schwimmer (1929) 279 U.S. 644
United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174
Jones v. City of Opelika (1943) 319 U.S. 105
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624
Follett v. Town of McCormick, S.C. (1944) 321 U.S. 573
Reid v. Covert (1957) 354 U.S. 1
Cooper v. Aaron (1958) 358 U.S. 1
Griswold v. State of Conn. (1965) 381 U.S. 479
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 491
Haynes v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 85
U.S. v. Jackson (1968) 390 U.S. 570
Gardner v. Broderick (1968) 392 U.S. 273
Watts v. U.S. (1969) 394 U.S. 705
Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851
U.S. v. Freed (1971) 401 U.S. 601
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg (1971) 485 P.2d 737
City of Lakewood v. Pillow (1972) 501 P.2d 744
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588
Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6
Commonwealth v. Davis (1976) 343 N.E.2d 847
Salute v. Pitchess (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 557
Moncur v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 118
Application of Atkinson (1980) 291 N.W.2d 396
State v. Kessler (1980) 289 Or. 359
Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741
Doe v. City And County of San Francisco (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 509
Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197
Second Amendment Foundation v. City of Renton (1983) 668 P.2d 596
Guillory v. Gates (1984) 731 F.2d 1379
Hunter v. Underwood (1985) 471 U.S. 222
State v. McAdams (1986) 714 P.2d 1236
CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services (1989) 489 U.S. 189
Kellogg v. City of Gary (1990) 562 N.E.2d 685
Dano v. Collins (1990) 820 P.2d 1021
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) 494 U.S. 259
Howlett By and Through Howlett v. Rose (1990) 496 U.S. 356
Fresno Rifle And Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp (1990) 746 F. Supp. 1415
Hafer v. Melo (1991) 502 U.S. 21
Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666
Hickman v. Block (1996) 81 F.3d 98
United States v. Gomez (1996) 81 F.3d 846
Nordyke v. Santa Clara County (1997) 110 F.3d 707
Upland v. Block (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1537
California Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1302
In re Englebrecht (1998) 67 Cal.4th 486
United States v. Emerson (1999) 46 F. Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Texas)
Kessler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472
People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824
In re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866