How to Sue for Due Process of Law

Summary

It is a waste of time to ask any state judge to admit 35+ years of predatory fraud and discrimination against veterans, so we need to ask the federal court to hold the state judge accountable for the violation of due process. This begins under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Enforcement Law

Section 1983 opens the door to Federal Enforcement of Due Process. It was written in 1871 to deal with racism by judges and other officials, but it applies whenever state actors violate Federal Rights. This is the "Remedy" to enforce "Rights" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Where they have "subject matter jurisdiction," they have "Immunity" from any suit for money or just to harass them and we can only sue to make them follow due process of law. If we can prove the violation of rights, most courts are required by Rules to assign the case to a new judge who is not biased or inclined to repeat the violation.
Where they have NO possibility of "subject matter jurisdiction" on the rights they violate, they have NO Immunity for those violations. They can be sued for money.

The difference is between the
"lack of subject matter jurisdiction at the moment"
vs.
"the complete absence of all subject matter jurisdiction EVER."

The Question of "Immunity" is answered by the "Federal Preemption of State Jurisdiction" which removes Judicial Immunity by preventing "concurrent jurisdiction" on the federal subject matter.

The Constitution and Laws of the United States control every aspect of "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" on federal rights established by Title 10 military service and Title 38 veteran benefits.

The Question of Immunity is Answered by Federal Preemption

It is very hard to sue a judge for money because they have “Immunity” for //almost// everything they do.

On the other hand, it is not hard to sue for due process because Immunity has nothing to do with federal Enforcement by Declaratory or Injunctive Relief.

Immunity ONLY applies to a suit demanding “judgments for money” and ONLY applies when the state judge is doing something within the usual "box" of jurisdiction that belongs to the court where they work. That box is defined by state law, which usually says “all cases of law or equity, except when the law says it belongs exclusively to some other court.”

Federal Preemption means that the subject matter belongs exclusively to the Federal Court before any state law can touch it.

"Concurrent Jurisdiction" is the idea that state courts hold jurisdiction to "interpret" federal law, which means "to cherry-pick whatever federal laws they like." Whenever state judges claim to hold "concurrent jurisdiction" on veteran benefits, whether they cite Rose v. Rose or not, it is a "smoke and mirror" show to hide their violation of Federal Preemption.

When they commit this act of fraud to cross the line of federal preemption, they cancel their own immunity. Every time they cite Rose v. Rose to claim jurisdiction, they commit the violation of federal preemption. The difference between the Complete Federal Preemption expressed in the plain text of positive law 38 U.S.C. §511 pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution and quotations taken out of context from Rose v. Rose is that § 511 is the supreme law of the land and Rose is NOT.

It does not matter whether they have issued orders to make or enforce alimony or child support. The moment they claim to have jurisdiction on veteran benefits, combat related special compensation or social security benefits, they cross the line of federal preemption and forfeit their immunity.
More on Federal Preemption and Positive Law ...

Back ...

About Federal Preemption

Federal Preemption means that certain federal matters of law are totally exempt (-empt) from state jurisdiction before (Pre-) any state law could possibly have and effect. They belong exclusively to federal authorities and federal courts because Congress has exercised constitutional power to assign jurisdiction on the subject matter by law, thereby eliminating the possibility of state jurisdiction.

State law cannot create jurisdiction where federal preemption has canceled that possibility.

Positive Law means the words of the law must be taken "literally at face value" because they stand alone as “legal evidence" of the supreme law of the land (1 U.S.C. § 204 and the Supremacy Clause) which means they are PROOF of Congressional Intent. Positive Law statutes are not subject to creative interpretation, especially by state judges.

NO matter what anybody says, Positive Law pursuant to the Constitution is the ruling of Congress over top of anything the courts might say. It takes precedence over case law, especially old case law. This also helps prevent federal courts from trying to use obsolete quotations out of court rulings to get around federal preemption expressed in current federal positive law.

The result of Federal Preemption by Positive Law is to remove "judicial immunity," by removing the possibility of "concurrent jurisdiction" or “creative judicial interpretation.”

The complete absence of all possibility of state jurisdiction means we can sue state judges for money because they have no immunity where they have violated our Rights with absolutely no possibility of jurisdiction.

Judicial Immunity is necessary to protect the stability of our legal system. Due Process of Law is necessary to protect the integrity of our legal system. Federal Preemption by Positive Law is there to protect military and veteran families by removing judicial immunity.

State judges have NO possibility of jurisdiction to interpret any federal statute covered by federal preemption or positive law. They are simply Required to OBEY federal preemption of state jurisdiction.

For a list of Positive Law Titles and citation of law that established them, see United States Code: List of Positive Law Titles With Enacting Cites and Location to Revision Notes (last rev. 2017) published by The Law Librarians' Society of Washington, D.C. (LLSDC) online at https://www.llsdc.org/

Back / Up...

About Jurisdiction

A really simple definition of Jurisdiction ("law-talk") is "the authority to explain what the law means when it is hard to understand." When it is not obvious what the words of the law mean, sometimes a court needs to help everyone understand what it means. This is called "Interpretation."

Jurisdiction also means the authority to solve problems by making decisions based on what the law says and what it means; literally, "to speak the law."

It is well settled law that states hold jurisdiction on the subject matter of divorce, alimony and child support. State courts of "general jurisdiction" could potentially hold jurisdiction to decide an almost any matter of law or equity (fairness), unless the matter is assigned to some other court by statutory or constitutional law.

Some federal matters of law are exempt from state jurisdiction because they are assigned to federal authorities and federal courts by the Constitution and Laws of the United States. This is known as "federal preemption." No matter what state law says about these exclusive federal matters of law, the state law has no effect. The Supremacy Clause requires the state judge to obey the federal law.

Veteran Benefits, under Positive Law Title 38 pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution, are just such an exclusive federal subject matter of law.

Section 511 of Title 38 makes it clear that any question about how benefits are provided and to whom, belongs to the Secretary of the VA and ONLY certain federal courts on appeal. State judges are required to obey 38 U.S.C. §5301 as it is written because § 511 makes it clear that state courts have NO possibility of jurisdiction to decide ANY question of Law or fact that might affect benefits under Title 38. State jurisdiction on the subject matter of divorce, alimony and child support has NEVER given them jurisdiction on the subject matter of veteran benefits.

The subject matter of "disability" might be something the state court would have jurisdiction to decide under state law, workers compensation claims, personal injury, or even in the context of the family court, unless qualified federal authorities have already determined that disability is present.

Whenever a disability rating decision is made by the DOD, VA or SSA, the state court is required to accept the legally established fact of disability at face value. The state has no jurisdiction to challenge, question, dispute or interpret federal disability ratings. The history, nature and degree of disability ratings belong exclusively and permanently to the federal authorities.

The state court may be more protective of the person with disability, but has NO possibility of jurisdiction to ignore the federal rights established by those decisions. Family court has no authority to "impute income" that would contradict the fact of disability because that would be fraud upon the court and fraud upon the United States government.

Disability is not an excuse to get out of child support or anything else for that matter. It is the legal recognition of medical problems that make everything more difficult and make the person vulnerable to predatory fraud, abuse, discrimination and profiteering. That is why we have laws to protect individuals with disability and why those laws are enforceable under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary: Jurisdiction on any subject matter is based on whatever constitutional and statutory law says. If the law does not specify exactly what court holds jurisdiction, then it is reasonable for state courts to decide on the matter the best way they can.

On the other hand, where federal law has made it clear that things like military service and veteran benefits belong exclusively to federal authorities, the state court has no jurisdiction to touch them.

Back / Up ...

Connecting the Dots

In order to bring a federal suit against a state judge under the Fourteenth Amendment, we need to be really clear about what federal right the judge has violated. See the list of Federal Rights Often Violated by state judges.

This is not about any orders made by the judge within the jurisdiction he has.
This is about the violation of federal rights by the extraction of money from veteran benefits which the judge has NO possibility of jurisdiction to do.

Example:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ________ DISTRICT OF ________
Veteran _______, Pro Se Plaintiff, v. Judge ______________ Defendant	Case No. ____________ Complaint to Enforce Due Process of Law

On ___________ (date(s)), in the ______________(state) courtroom, this defendant judge violated my 38 U.S.C. § 5301 right to protection of my VA benefits from "any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt" which is further protected under the complete federal preemption of state jurisdiction established by the plain text of positive law 38 U.S.C. § 511 pursuant to the Constitution.

According to Article VI of the Constitution, positive law 1 U.S.C. §204, and the complete preemption expressed in positive law 38 U.S.C. §511, whenever there is any question about whether state judges are Required to take 38 U.S.C. § 5301 literally at face value and OBEY it, that question belongs exclusively to the Secretary of the VA and ONLY specific federal courts.

Relief:

Declaratory Judgment confirming federal preemption and finding that the Defendant Judge violated it.
Punitive Judgment for the irreparable harm caused by his actions in the complete absence of all jurisdiction on the subject matter of the Rights he has violated. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) , et al.

This is not a fill in the blank template.
It is just an example.
Contact us about what you need to file your own Complaint.

Photo: Law books In other words, 38 U.S.C. § 5301 says that veteran benefits cannot be touched by ANY legal or equitable process, not even for alimony or child support because 38 U.S.C. § 511 is PROOF of Congressional Intent to protect veterans by preempting state jurisdiction.

The state judge broke the federal law that makes veteran benefits exempt from state jurisdiction under any circumstances.

State judges have jurisdiction on the subject matter of divorce, alimony and child support, but the supreme law of the land makes it clear that state judges have NO possibility of jurisdiction on the subject matter of Title 38. Where they have NO subject matter jurisdiction, they have NO immunity for the violation of rights.

What to Expect

The Federal District Courts are going to do one of two things, either stop us at the door by refusing to issue the summons to the Defendant judge, or issue the summons and dismiss the case. They might say our Complaint is an appeal of the state court order, or they might say the state judge has "absolute immunity" for anything he does, but that is not quite right.

Judicial Immunity boils down to one single thing, potential jurisdiction on the subject matter of the rights he is violating. Actions that are NOT within the jurisdiction of the court where he works, e.g. Veteran benefits, are NOT judicial actions. He has NO immunity where he has NO possibility of jurisdiction on the subject matter of the rights he has violated.

Since we are fighting over 35 years of systematic predatory corruption, we are going to need the Supreme Court of the United States to issue a decision on the following Constitutional Questions:

Are state judges REQUIRED to OBEY the Complete Federal Preemption expressed in the plain text of current positive law 38 U.S.C. § 511 and implied by the nature of Title 38 pursuant to Article I § 8 of the Constitution?

The ONLY real answer is
"Yes! Of course they are because the Supremacy Clause says that state judges are automatically bound by federal law pursuant to the Constitution."

The lower federal courts understand that these questions put them into a difficult position.

Answering the question correctly by saying "Yes" would disrupt some paychecks for local state judges and lawyers by exposing the misconduct in their violations of due process.
Answering the questions by saying "No" would get the federal judges in trouble for violating due process by going against the Constitution.

We just need them to dismiss our Complaints so that we can appeal them up to the Supreme Court. See Case Studies

This is very simple to understand:
Complete Preemption was established by the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA) Pub. Law 100-687 (1988) which closed the § 211 loopholes described in Rose v. Rose, thereby closed every other loophole created by Rose.

Section 511 makes it clear state judges could not possibly hold jurisdiction to extract any money from veteran benefits by property division in divorce, or support orders, garnishment, contempt or even jail.

That means, ... we can sue them for money because of the damage they do to our families.

If you have suffered hardship by the corruption and profiteering on veteran benefits in state court, or hardship after losing a veteran to suicide caused by that predatory fraud, please contact us for more information about how to get those corrupt lawyers and judges in trouble.