You have to go deep into court cases, which most people don't often do, to see that the American legal system is undermined by the same forces as the economic system. I describe the abstract principles that fuse the two, in a lawsuit against the Governor and Supreme Court of Florida.

Murray_v_Governor_of_Florida_US_FL_MD_623-cv-1351.pdf

Stephen, if you just wanted to let off steam with this, carry on.

Otherwise, what do you think you're going to accomplish? Would you sit down at a poker table with the state of mind that you bring to this? Worse, would you sit down at a gambling table for a game you're not very familiar with having the state of mind that you bring to this?

Because isn't that in a large sense what you're doing?

To begin with, I think your complaint will be dismissed without more than a paragraph or two of it having been read.

I'm not an attorney, but I have had to be able to carry on semi-intelligent conversations about law with attorneys. The general form of a legal complaint is, "I, plaintiff, have suffered injury X due to the actions of defendant, and I request that the court order remedy Y to address the injury I have suffered."

What is your injury? And assaults upon your sense of justice, reason, or aesthetics don't count; it has to be something where reasonable people would generally be able to come to an agreement on a monetary value for it.

If your injury is that you are offended by the way the courts are run, the remedy for that is to run for a seat in the legislature and introduce a bill to change how the courts are run.

Or maybe to broadcast your complaint somehow so that a groundswell of public outrage forces the courts to change.

Anyway, it seems to me that you're stepping clumsily into a rigged game, and the main way to win a rigged game is not to play.

Marsden, the case law which you refer to is Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and such, which provide competing opportunities for discretion to dismiss such as that a complaint should be "short and plain" both because the plaintiff's statements are "accepted as true" at this stage without needing to go into detail, and because the defendants must be able to "understand what they are being accused of", but also a complaint must "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face". This provides defendants the opportunity to say it is not plausible to believe any of it happened because it is too short, or that they can't understand it because it is too long, both of which a judge can blindly accept.

In the case of my complaint, the specific issue is that the claims are based on state action that is designed to be superficially legal specifically to game the system of case law for dismissal prior to response and based on various immunities. It also deals with "due process" which is a concept which one can only argue about "grounded in reason and history". So the standard motion to dismiss will say it is not plausible on its face that any of the alleged state violations took place or violated the superficial rituals of due process. The best defense against this is to raise every fact and issue, and then raise each one again at every stage of response, objection, appeal, and petition, with the very least result to get on the record exactly what the judge affirmed and ruled against. And anything the judge does not give you, you can then point to that in another case and say according to the judge in this case, prosecutors orchestrating known lies without deterrent and an informal inducement of non-prosecution of perjury hidden from the jury meets the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment.

I consider the biggest risk, would be to have a judge dismiss without ever getting the full facts of the case on the record. If it does get dismissed, it is important to have a judge sign that none of the practices listed as giving rise to the claims are in conflict with federal law. So I will appeal every order to make a judge at some level rule on every asserted fact and claim based on it. The claims are valid, and there is no choice based on any other factor to not argue them.

But one of the most important issues in my complaint is to motive. Did someone run over a pedestrian while trying to pass a road hazard, or did someone intentionally veer into a pedestrian? So I have no choice but to attempt to establish a pattern and a motive that motivates the pattern, to an end result that is not legal discretion, random chance, or the product of some other factors. Like suppose the government built a wall supposedly to protect against rising sea levels, which just happened to separate a black neighborhood from the business district or some sort of discrimination giving rise to a claim. A short complaint that said "the government built a wall, it blocks black people from getting downtown" would get a response "the government built a sea wall in a known flood area, the complaint fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face" and a judge could use discretion to dismiss it. You would then have to go into quite a bit of detail to prove it was designed to keep black people out of the downtown, and the defendants would say "this is a shotgun pleading, i can't understand it", and the judge would have discretion to dismiss it. So you then have to raise an appeal with some "question of law" like "is a city building a wall with the practical effect of disproportionately inconveniencing black people, as part of a pattern of discrimination that included x, y, and z, yada yada yada", and thereby attempt to establish what the court is affirming by dismissing. And then every city would build a wall around the black people, because the complaint has described in painstaking detail exactly what you can do that is legal in federal court. You ever think maybe that is my goal?

But if what you are saying is that all the lawyers you know are desperate, venal, and greedy - basically unethical, not too bright, and hoping to make the payments on their BMW by finding a case they can win before Thursday - I already knew that. The rights and legal system of the United States are not protected by typical halfwit scumbag lawyers, but traded to the local government for McMansions.

I think the case law I referred to was almost every successful tort brought under English Common Law and any other legal system based on English Common Law. And maybe Roman Law, too.

I think your filing will probably be dismissed because you do not establish that you have standing to bring your complaint. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

It isn't that lawyers are desperate, venal, and greedy; and really it isn't the lawyers that matter, it's the judges.

And while not all judges are desperate, venal, and greedy, probably most of them generally don't want to do any more work than they feel like they are required or expected to do. So when they get a case filed pro se, they figure it's at best going to be messy, so they look for a reason that they don't have to deal with it.

And maybe in looking for that reason to dismiss, something about it piques their interest and they decide to try to find a way to help the plaintiff accomplish something.

But that probably only happens very rarely.

What you seem to be angling for -- and I only glanced at a few parts of your filing -- is redress for Mandi Jackson for not having received a fair trial due to the case's reliance on the testimony of jailhouse informants, whose testimony was tainted for (guessing here) their hoping to receive favorable treatment in their own legal matters for having given it.

So Mandi Jackson is a proper plaintiff; her injury is whatever sentencing she received in her trial; the actions that caused the injury are the witnesses' testimony against her and the court's reliance on them; and the remedy is to have a mistrial declared and to go through the process again without relying on tainted testimony.

Marsden I think you are missing the point of Ex Parte Young which asks (from Wikipedia):

"Could a federal court entertain a lawsuit seeking to enjoin a state official from carrying out state laws that were purportedly in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?"

It then answers:

"That such a suit is not against the state, but merely against the individual officer, who cannot be acting on behalf of the state when he enforces a law that is unconstitutional; and 1.That an individual can be a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes (which only prohibits unconstitutional acts by the state, and those who represent it) while remaining a private person for sovereign immunity purposes. 2, That an individual can be a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes (which only prohibits unconstitutional acts by the state, and those who represent it) while remaining a private person for sovereign immunity purposes."

So if Florida law says a prosecutor can orchestrate lies without penalty, then under the specific circumstances I have laid out, that is a violation of due process. And even if some state actor immunity would prevent financial compensation or standing under 42 USC 1983, I still have standing to enjoin enforcement of the law, and specifically by enjoining criminal prosecution in Florida before they harm me.

But nor are my rights just chilled hypothetically. I have already had felons invited to lie about me by the State, and I have been surrounded and threatened and hunted by deputies for reporting felony perjury to the Florida Inspector General, among other things.

I am not going to look it up, but I suspect Furman v. Georgia had to be pretty lengthy. I don't see any obvious reason why a petition against enforcement of a law after someone is accused, would be longer than petition for injunction against that same law before anyone is accused.

Also if you look at page 128 of my Complaint you will see I am seeking declaratory remedy under 28 USC 2201 which says: "any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." I have listed a whole bunch of rights that I claim to be deprived of, which I have standing to ask the Court to declare.

So if Florida law says a prosecutor can orchestrate lies without penalty, then under the specific circumstances I have laid out, that is a violation of due process. And even if some state actor immunity would prevent financial compensation or standing under 42 USC 1983, I still have standing to enjoin enforcement of the law, and specifically by enjoining criminal prosecution in Florida before they harm me.

But nor are my rights just chilled hypothetically. I have already had felons invited to lie about me by the State, and I have been surrounded and threatened and hunted by deputies for reporting felony perjury to the Florida Inspector General, among other things.

So you have not (yet) been charged with a crime, and (as far as anyone else can tell) it is only your speculation that you are being targeted to be charged with a crime for having reported perjury. What threats have law officers made against you, and how have they hunted you? Do you have any documentation for these actions?

Yes of course I have documentation. But the subject of this lawsuit is not such individual violations of my First and Fourth Amendment rights under color of law, rather the claims are based on a pattern of informal arrangements of perjury which are created and permitted by Florida law, which those violations are examples of. In theory - and this does not apply to my case - but in theory, and I have no reason to think about it too much, a cop could lie and it would be factual evidence in support of an injunction for a due process claim, but the lie could take place in the course of an activity otherwise supported by probable cause and therefore individually be exempt from a 42 USC 1983 claim.

Some threats are crimes. And even more threats are crimes when law officers are the ones making them. Do you think you've been the victim of a crime in your police interactions? THAT'S what your lawsuit should revolve around, if there's anything there.

In any case, cops lie. They probably don't think it's lying; they're just filling in some evidentiary gaps with things that they are certain are true. I personally know of lies from cops that are a lot more egregious than anything I saw in your filing. It's a cop's job to get bad guys off the street, after all, and they maybe aren't so clear about the need for solid evidence in accomplishing that. Ideally, a good defense attorney would have raised all the objections I read from your filing, and apparently Mandi Jackson didn't have a very good defense attorney.

But the interpretation of "due process" in America holds only that you should have access to legal representation, and not that it should be competent legal representation.

Marsden that is a pretty neat summary of due process, which is not one of the 10 items on Judge Friendly's list, which makes the 5th and 14th Amendment unnecessary as redundant to the Sixth Amendment, and which ignores Article III, Section 2, pursuant to which the Sixth Amendment has been interpreted as a right to effective counsel. I agree that "effective" counsel is a fake right invented because the Constitution does not provide a process remedy for false convictions. But Article III, Section 2 says such opinions which are not presently argued in any case, are irrelevant.

And you are still missing the point of Ex Parte Young.

You should worry about U.S. District Court Judge Mendoza missing the point you see, too.