/
1100 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAMES E. WHITNEY PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OFARKANSAS RESPONDENT
- ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF ARKANSAS CASE NO: CR- 17-831
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
JAMES E. WHITNEY, PRO-SE SUI- JURIS IN PROPRIA PERSONA 163817 P.O. BOX 600 • • : GRADY ARKANSAS 71644-0600 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Statement Of Inability To Provide A complete Record Of The Proceedings Below...... Issues Presented For Review And Consideration...... Of
List Of Parties...... v TableOf Authorities......
FederalAnd State Cases Cited ...... TextCited...... OpinionBelow ...... Jurisdiction......
Introduction...... Answers Provided ...... Ll Constitutional And Statutory Provisions Involved......
StatementOf The Case ......
. Reasons For Granting My Writ ...... 3 Conclusion......
Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts...... I le Declaration/ Verification...... CertificateOf Service......
Certificate Of Institutional Filing ...... 23
1 INDEX TO APPENDICES
Appendix A Opinion Below
Appendix B Originating Petition For Writ Of Coram Nobis
Appendix C Relevant Letters From Below
Appendix D Affidavit f Sovereignty & Relevant Documents
Appendix E Constitutional Issues
Appendix F / Federal And State Statutory Issues
II STATEMENT OF INABILITY TO PRODUCE A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
I have made an honest and diligent effort to obtain a copy of the trial transcript and record below on at least five (5) separate occasions, twice to the trial court, once each to the Appeals Court Of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Supreme Court and twice each o both previous defense counselors in order to prepare pleadings, motions, and other paper for direct appeal and post conviction relief. 1-lowever, all three (3) courts have denied my petitions, and neither previous defense counselors. (see Rule 1.16, Ark. R. Prof. Conduct, Appendix F. Page 9, and Rule. 19, Ark. R. App. P. Appendix F. Page 2) responded to my request. see Appendix C. Page 1. Therefore, what I have been able to provide consist of what has been able to be obtained and pieced together from other sources than those with a duty andiegal responsibility to provide such and my best recollections from the trial conducted on 11-12 May 2016, in the attempt to prepare, construct and perfect my pleadings, motions and other papers tc best comply with such rules of the court. ..
James E. Whitney, Pro Se Sui Juris In Propria Persona
Ill ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATIONS
Corari Vobis vs. Corarn Nobis - Civil vs. Criminal
Is The Originating Court Ever Divested Of Jurisdiction To Review Its Own Judgments For Abuse And / Or Error?
Purpose Of Coram Vobis
Grounds Advanced As To Abuses, Errors, Defects, And / Or Deficiencies Of The Originating Court
iv LIST OF PARTIES
All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of, or has an interest in this petition is as follows:
Hon John D. Kemp. Chief Justice, Arkansas Supreme Court 625 Marshall Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1080
Hon. Josephine Linker Hart Associate Justice, Arkansas Supreme Court 625 Marshall Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 1-1080
Leslie Rutledge Arkansas Attorney General 323 Center Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610
Hon. Mark Lindsay Judge, Circuit Court Of Washington County, Arkansas P.O. Box 1612 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1612
John Threêt S Prosecutor, \Vashih.gton County, Arkansas 280 N College Ave Suite 301 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
TANAKH Page
GENESIS 1:26-27 ...... 1k
GENESIS 1:28-30 ...... llp
EXODUS13:1-2 ...... EXODUS18:15-23 ......
EXODUS 19:5-6 ...... 16 EXODUS23:24 ...... EXODUS34:10 ......
LEVITICUS 18:4-5 ...... LEVITICUS19: 15-18......
LEVITICUS 26:46 ......
NUMBERS27:16 ...... 2 DEUTERONOMY 4:2 ...... lu
DEUTERONOMY 13:1 ...... 16
DEUTERONOMY 13:5 ...... to
JUDGES (Chieftains) 2:2 ......
ISAIAH 1:17 ...... I Li
JERIMEIAH 2:10-12......
1C1 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 04 JULY 1776 ...... LI,Bi )
VI TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONTINUED
Page
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 17 SEPTEMBER 1787 ...... 18
ARTICLE THREE ...... is
ARTICLE$IX......
FOURTH AMENDMENT ...... FIFTHAMENDMENT...... SIXTH AMENDMENT...... 8
EIGHTH AMENDMENT ...... 2
NINTHAMENDMENT ...... 6
TENTH AMENDMENT ...... FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ......
28 U.S.C.A. 1.746 ...... 18U.S.C.A. 1621......
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS ...... (4, 18
ARTICLE2 § 1 ...... ii 1€
ARTICLE22 ...... ZI5
ARTICLE--,2 § 6...... Z i
ARTICLE2 § 8...... ARTICLE29......
VI' TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONTINUED
Page
ARTICLE2 § 13 ......
ARTICLE2 § 15 ...... zo
ARTICLE2 § 29......
ARTICLE5 § 20...... ARTICLE74...... 10
AMENDMENT80 ......
A.C.A. § 5-1-109 ...... A.C.A. § 5-1-110......
A .C.A. 5-1-112 ...... § .. .
A.C.A. §5-4-501 ...... iI
A.C.A. §5-27-602 ...... A.C.A. §16-58-101......
A.C.A. § 16-68-601......
A.C.A. § 16-68-604 ......
. . . A.C.A. § 16-90-107 ......
A.C.A.16-19-113 ...... 1993 ARKANSAS LAW ACT 550 ......
ARKANSAS SENTENCING GRID STANDARDS ...... z1 RULE 1.2, ARKANSAS CODE OF .JUDICIAL CONDUCT...... 13
RULE 1.12. ARKANSAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT ...... i
VI" TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONTINUED
Page
RULE 2.2, ARKANSAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT ......
RULE 2.3, ARKANSAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT......
RULE 2.6, ARKANSAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT......
RULE 1. 16, ARKANSAS RULES OFPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ......
RULE 5.3, ARKANSAS. RULES OFPRO•FESSI.ONAL. CONDUCT ...... ' 10
RULE 8.3, ARKANSAS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ...... f't
RULE 8.4, ARKANSAS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ...... F- 3
RULE 8.5,- ARKANSAS RULES OFPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ...... F- IS•
RULE 1 1' ARKANSAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE...... F I a.
RULE 42, RULES OF ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT......
RULE 43, RULES OF ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT...... 71 10
RULE 4-7, RULES OF ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT ...... F '1
RULE 60, ARKANSAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ......
RULE 19, ARKANSAS RULES APPELLATE PROCEDURE ......
RULE 1-7, RULES OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT ...... F' Zt
rn-AR NSAS-SPRFME-GOURT......
......
RULE 4-7, Rjj_Es-eFrIrn ARKANSAS-S,UPREME-CGU-RT—......
. RULE 6-6, RULES OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT ......
Ix. FEDERAL AND STATE CASES CITED
Page . 1l.ç 1& Afroyirn v. Rusk, 87 s.ct. 1660, (1967) ...... 2 Bunch v. State, 370 Ark. 3, (2007)......
Davis v. State Of Indiana, 161 N.E. 375 (1928)......
Estate Of Farrar v. Cain, 941 F.2d 1311, (5th Cir 1991) ...... Is-
Griffin v. State, 2018 Ark. 10, (2018)......
Hale v.Hinkle, 201 U.S. 43. (1905) ...... '1 I Johnsonv. Avery, 89 S.Ct. 747 ...... Cl.
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, (9th Cir 2004)...... Klinger v. Department Of Correction, 107 F.3d 608......
Kontrick v. Ryan, 124 S.CT. 906, (2004)...... Lewis v. Wood, 848 F.2d 649, (5th Cir 1988)......
Loveless v. State, CR-05-227, WL246552, (02 Feb 2006)...... z Nance v. State, 2014 Ark. 201, (2014)......
Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, (8th Cir 2013)......
Pádleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor And Alderman Of The City Of Savannah (1854).. i6
Parra'tt v. Taylor, 101 s.ct. 1908, (1981)......
-Penn--v...... v SIA& zZ fkk,s Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231(2007)...... 01
White v. Kantzky, 366 F.Supp.2d 1042 ......
x FEDERAL AND STATE CASES CITED
(COMMON LAW) (CON'T)
Page
Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.CT. 2321, (1991)......
U.S. V. United Mine Workers, 67 S.CT. 677, (1947)......
xi TEXT CITED
Page
B1acks Law Dictionary, 10th Ed. (2014)......
Post Conviction Remedies, 2015 Edition, §2:3 Brian R. Means, Thomas & Reuters...... IS-
Post Conviction Remedies, 2015 Edition, §3:2 Brian R. Means, Thomas & Reuters......
Post Conviction Remedies, 2015 Edition,3:3 Brian R. Means, Thomas & Reuters ...... 9,)(
/
/
XII OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the State Of Arkansas Supreme Court appears at Appendix A to the petition and is unpublished, Whitney v. State, 2018 Ark. 138.
JURISDICTION
The date on which the highest State Court issued an opinion for this case was 26 April 2018. A copy of this and the dissenting opinion appears at Appendix A, pages 2-4. A timely petition for rehearing was therefore denied on 07 June 2018 and appears at Appendix A, page 1.
The Jurisdiction of this Court further invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a0.
Therefore, knowing that I have 90 days from the date denying my petition for rehearing in which to file my petition for Writ Of Certiorari, I pray this Court will render her opinion on the square and by the compass when reviewing the Constitutional issues and questions of law which I have raised herein and brought before this Court. INTRODUCTION
1)1, James E. Whitney, am a living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal, not simply because I say I am, but by the fact that I was born a sovereign as bestowed upon me by my creator, lord, and king, YHWH, in the beginning, The source of Breath of All Flesh, Numbers 27:16 and not by way of any world-of man government contracts, be they allegedly a State, Nation, or the like, and such sovereignty may not be modified, altered, restricted, or diminished but by consent, and I have given no such consent, nor have I knowingly entered into any contract or agreement with any world-of man government, see Afroyim v. Rusk, 87 S.CT. 1660, (1967).
That I am being held captive illegally by the State Of Arkansas, as a prisoner in there Department Of Correction, at the Varner / Varner Supermax Unit in Grady, Arkansas, being confined and sequestered to a cell 24/7 approximately 8' x 12' in size 14 Nov. 2016 under extended Protective Restrictive Housing pursuant to threats of great physical harm received from both staff and inmates alike.
That the sentence of 540 years confinement, under which I am currently being held captive, is a De facto sentence of life without parole. The indictment being duplicitous in nature. The sentence imposed is contrary to and in violation of the Constitutions, Laws, Statues, Rules, and Treaties of The United States, and the State Of Arkansas. see Arkansas Code Annotated, (A. C.A.) §5-1-109; §5-1-110; §5-1-112; §5-4-501; §16-90-107; §16-91-113; 1993 Arkansas Laws Act 550; Arkansas Sentencing Standards Grid; United States Constitutional Amendments I, IV, V, VIII, IX, XIV; Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas, Article 2 §§ 1, 2, 6, 8, 15, and 29.
That the trial Court lacked Rem Jurisdiction, Personam Jurisdiction, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The trial court further lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction in that any Statue Of Limitations had elapsed prior to the commencement of proceedings.
Per Rule 4-3(i), Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, when the sentence is death or life imprisonment, the court must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant in accordance with A.C.A. §16-91-113, a sentence of 540 years is clearly a De facto sentence of life imprisonment without parole. However, The Supreme Court Of Arkansas has continually refused, avoided, and resisted their duty and responsibility to comply with it's own rules and conduct the required review by obstructing in an ever increasing number of instances to accept and hear my Pro Se pleadings and motions, To wit: Court order entered 01 Mar 2017, CR-16-964, denying my motion to file a Pro Se Supplement Appellant Brief; Court order entered, 05 Api 2017, Denying motion for reconsideration of denial to allow filing of Pro Se Supplemental Appellant Brief; Court order entered, 19 July 2017, CR-16-964, Denying Pro Se Motion for a copy of the record; Court order entered 09 Nov 2017, CR- 16-964, Denying my Pro Se motion for copy of the record on appeal and related documents, additionally, there are a number of other actions pending before the court that are being denied without being heard.
The rule of reason being that a Writ Of Coram Vobis ought to be granted or else a miscarriage of justice may result, Davis v. State Of Indiana, 161 N.E. 375, (1928) and no harm can be done by allowing the originating court to review its judgment for abuses, errors, defects, or deficiencies further, a party who shows even a Deminims violation of Constitutional or Statutory secured protections is entitled to relief. Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649, (5th Cir 1988). 2 see also dissenting opinion Josephine Linker Hart, Associate Justice in Griffin v. State, 2018 Ark. 10. ANSWERS PROVIDED
1) Coram Vobis vs. Coram Nobis - Civil vs. Criminal
In seeking relief through available Post Conviction Remedies, both criminal and civil court rules maybe applicable, howbeit, when in conflict, and relief is sought from a criminal originating conviction, such as in this ,matter, the Rule Of Criminal Procedures must prevail. Therefore, as there is in this country no Sovereign who is understood to sit [and preside] in any court, and it is never the case that a writ is addressed to another arm of the Sovereign that issued it as in the case of a writ of Coram Nobis; Post Conviction Remedies 2015 Edition, §3:3, Brian R Meanse 2015, Thomas and Reuters, where one Sovereign is directly opposing another, it can be argued that the Coram Vobis form is appropriate here, as the second paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence of 1776 states: "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit Of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people [Sovereigns]to alter or abolish it."The declaration goes on further to state: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their [Sovereigns] right, it is their [Sovereigns] duty, to throw off such Governments." This is a clear and plain demonstration that those who penned this founding document decisively acknowledged that the individual living breathing sentient mortal is by and far the Natural Sovereign superior to any world-of-man Government, this having been established by my Lord and King, YHWH, in the beginning. This was found to be so compelling and sacred by the founder of the world-of-man Governments known as the United States and the State Of Arkansas to find it also expressed in the preambles of The Constitution Of The United States, 17 September 1787, and The Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas, 1874, as well as the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, §29 of the Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas. To that end, The Constitutions, Statues, Rules, and Regulations were / are created and textualized to protect, not subjugate and rule over the living breathing sentient natural Sovereign mortal. Howbeit to be controlling and limiting over those individuals employed and serving in Constitutional or Legislative created offices and positions as well as those who contract with these world-of-man Governments in the attempt, in what has been called the great experiment, to put an end to such corruption and abuses of power that has been previously experienced, so that it should ever be extirpated. The courts having held in Hale v. Hinkle, 201 u.s. 43, (1905). That since the private man [that is the living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal] is not named in the statues and all statues are for the regulation of business due to the fact that the natural persons rights existed long antecedent to the organization of the "State" he owes no such duty or loyalty to such world-of-man contracts, be they allegedly a state, nation, or the like since he receives nothing therefrom. As such I am not a "person" regulated by the :state", I do not hold any position or office to which I am subject to the Constitutions or Legislatures, they do not dictate what I do or do not do. The foregoing clearly establishes that I am a Sovereign and power holder over the world-of-man Governments known as the United States, and all such units that make up the union. Afroyim v. Rusk, 875 S.CT. 1660, (1967).
El I am a living breathing sentient natural Sovereign mortal, not simply because I say I am, but by the fact that I was born a Sovereign as bestowed upon me by my Creator, Lord, and King, YHWH, the source of breath of all flesh, and not by way of any world-of-man Government, and such may not be modified, altered, restricted, or diminished but by consent of the Sovereign, and I have given no such consent or entered into any agreements with any world-of-man Governments to subjugate me, my rights, or protections. Therefore, as a properly decreed and recognized Sovereign, it is my right, it is my duty to direct to an originating court for a review of its own judgment and predicated on any and all alleged errors of abuse, fact, or merit, to provide it with ample opportunity to take any actions or corrective measures to cure before being subjected to a review by a superior court for findings of such errors to be of Constitutional and / or statutory provisions.
2)Is The Originating court ever divested of jurisdiction to review its own judgments for abuse and / errors?
The simple answers to this question is no. The purpose for seeking leave from the Appellant Court after an appeal has been filed is not because the originating court has been deprived of its Jurisdiction to review it's own judgments for abuse and I or errors, but to seek a stay in the Appellant Proceedings to allow the originating court ample opportunity to conduct a review and take any actions or corrective measures to cure any abuses, errors, defects, and / or deficiencies of a Constitutional and / or Statutory nature that may be found. Thereby, possibly eliminating the need for the Appellant Court to proceed further, allowing for a potential decrease in the work load of the court, decreasing unnecessary delays or the needless increase in the cost of litigation, and to support the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, increasing the efficiency of the judiciary, once the Appellant Process is complete, a decision rendered and mandated has been issued, it is then counter productive and there is no further valid, logical, legitimate, or justification need to seek the Appellant Courts involvement until such time as an appeal of the originating court regarding its review may become necessary.
Purpose of Coram Vobis
The Coram Vobis is a legal procedure to fill a gap in the legal system to provide relief that was not available at trial because a fact existed which was not known or not presented, as in the case of exculpatory evidence with held and / or ineffective assistance of counsel, and relief is not available on appeal because it is not in the record. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, (1984); Loveless v. State, 2006 WL246552. The object of Coram Vobis is to bring to light errors of fact that the trial court could not have avoided [such as lack of Jurisdiction, break in evidence integrity, or exculpatory evidence withheld] - mistakes that, if known at the time of the trial, would have prevented the entry of the judgment. Clerical errors by assistance mistakes in the process of notice and pleadings, and events outside the court room that call into question the reliability of the action taken inside. Post Conviction Remedies 2015 Edition, §3:2, Brian R. Means C 20015, Thomas ands Reuters.
Grounds advanced as to abuses, errors, defects, and / or deficiencies of the originating court. With all respect to Mr. Jones, Assistant Attorney General for the Arkansas Attorney General's office. The lack of access to a law library to construct, prepare, prefect, and present a defense on my behalf as secured by the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, §10, of the Constitution of the State Of Arkansas is only one of the many alleged errors of a Constitutional and / or Statutory magnitude, the others include: Actual Innocence of the charged offense
Trial courts lack of any Jurisdiction as acquiscenced, agreed, and stipulated to by the Arkansas Attorney Generals office, Appendix D. pg 27.
Statue of Limitations expired prior to the commencement of the proceedings
Consents to search invalid
Evidence custody integrity
Exculpatory evidence withheld
Falsification of official Government documents
Retaliatory and vindictive motivations of investigating detective
Source of evidence suspect
Court room layout improper and prejudice
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Voir Dire Errors
Publishing of evidence to jury by prosecution during defendant's cross of states witness Det. Shrock
Submission of "Privileged" into evidence
0) Denial of directed verdict motion based on submission of "Privileged"
Improper bond revocation / denial of all bond
Improper use of Habitual Offender Enhancement
Double Jeopardy
Comments by trial court
Legality of 540 year sentence imposed
Infliction of cruel and unusual punishment The abuse-of-discretion standard means that the court has a range of choices, and that its decision will not be destroyed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law, Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, (8th Cir 2013). It is plain and clear that a vast number of the issues raised above are well outside the courts range of choices as set by Constitutional and Statutory provisions.
7 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
My secured and protected rights as expressed in the 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution have been violated by the courts below.
My guaranteed Constitutional and Statutory right to due process, that being the opportunity to speak and be heard, and it is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaning full time and in a meaningful manner, has been violated by the State Of Arkansas and the courts below.
My rights as expressed and secured by clause two of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due processes of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the law" has been extensively violated by the courts below.
The State Of Arkansas Court's have separated far from Federal and State Constitutional and Statutory laws as to have erroneously invalidated and violated my secured and guaranteed protections, as found, but limited to, those in Appedicies E and F herein to attached to this petition
The courts in the State Of Arkansas has acted with Legislative intent to usurp protected and secured rights of the Sovereign, The Living breathing sentient natural mortal, not serving in any world-of-man Government positions, and as expressed in the common law, Bunch v. State, 370 Ark. 3 (2007) This is not to be allowed.
6)The language, spirit, and intent of the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution Of The United States is to limit, contain, and reign in those who chose to serve in public offices. These founding documents of the Republic were designed and penned to subject and hold those individuals accountable for their conduct in the performance of their public duties and to hold them responsible for the actions of their subordinates, not only within their branch, but also by the other branches of the government by way of checks and balances; Moreover, to the True Sovereigns of the Republic. And as all statues enacted by the legislations are to be only for execution of the powers vested by the Constitutions in the world-of-man. Governments, and all others that have been penned and created by the legislation are plain and clearly unconstitutional in their very nature and fact of law. see Article One, Section Eight, Paragraph Eighteen of the U.S. Constitution and Amendment Ten, U.S. Constitution. These Limitations imposed therein, textualized and penned by the founders of the American Republic, Guided by our creator, are to distinctly and decisively imposed such restrictions to prevent a recurrence of the tyranny they experience first hand by such as those who thirst after and lust for power and control over others.
8 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
At this juncture in the proceedings the only matter properly before the Supreme Court Of Arkansas is my motion to file a reply brief with Supplemental Addendum in response to issues raised in the Appellee's Brief, see Whitney v. State, CR-17-919; Whitney v. State, CR-17- 831; Whitney v. Guterres, CV-17-693; Gray v. State, 2018 Ark. 79, Dissenting opinions and the only purpose for necessity to file a motion for an extention of time to file is due to the fact that the clerk of the court does not recognize the prevailing practice, custom, or conclusion of law in regards to the institutional mail box Rule or the rule of which pages are to be counted in a brief submission As my reply brief was timely and conformed to the 10 page limit. However the clerk counted the cover page, table of contents, signature page, declaration page, certificate of service page, and certificate of institutional filing page. The Supreme Court Of Arkansas is using Procedural Rules to usurp the guaranteed right of due process. The fundamental requirement of due process being the opportunity to speak and be heard, and it is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, Parratt v. Taylor, 101 S.CT. 1908, (1981). The court has become highly technical on procedural issues for the simple process of clearing the courts docket, and the results is that a petitioner's appeal is not considered on the merits. This being ever more prevelant when the petitioner elects not to use a member of the Bar and proceeds Pro Se, in creasing the possibility of exposing the errors, misconduct, deception, abuses of power and Tyranny of the courts.
Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the matter in controversy between the parties,A court lacks Jurisdiction "If it cannot hear a matter 'under any circumstance' and is 'wholly incompetent to grant the relief sought'." Nance v. State, 2014 Ark. 201. In the present case I seek Post Conviction relief under a writ of error directed to a court for review of its own judgment and predicated on alleged errors of fact, and the Supreme Court Of Arkansas is competent to grant me the relief requested.
Amendment 80, Section 3, to the Arkansas Constitution provides the Supreme Court the authority "To prescribe the rules of pleading, practice, and procedure." Procedural rules are aptly defined as claim-processing rules. see Kontrick v. Ryan, 124 S.CT. 906, (2004). Procedural Law is defined as the rules that prescribe the steps for having a right or duty judicially enforced as opposed to the law that defines the specific rights or duties themselves, Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231, (2007). A procedural rule has nothing to due with jurisdiction, I may or may not have neglected to follow a procedural rule in this case, However neglecting to follow a procedural rule does not strip the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court Of Arkansas of jurisdiction, but that is exactly and erroneously what the Supreme Court Of Arkansas is doing in this instant case.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Kontrick v. Ryan, 124 S.CT. 906, (2004), stated that the courts have been less than meticulous in their use of the term jurisdictional, they have more than occasionally used the term jurisdictional to describe prescriptions in rule of court. "Jurisdiction" the Court has aptly observed, "is a word of many, too many meanings." Clarity would be facilitated if the courts and litigants used the label "Jurisdictional" not for claim-processing rules, but only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases falling within the courts adjudicating authority. As a further point of law, per the letter dated 09 June 2016 from judge Mark Lindsay, Appendix A, pg. 30, he stated that as long as I had appointed counsel, he would not accept any pleadings or motions from me, thus barring me from filing any documents until counsel was released from his duties, which occurred after the mandate was issued, and as counsel refused to communicate or confer with me, of which the Supreme Court Of Arkansas was informed of numerous times, I was prevented from filing not only this instant action, but a number of others as well, that the Arkansas Supreme Court is resisting to hear on mearly procedural issues. See appendix C
Per Rule 4-3(i), Rule of the Arkansas Supreme Court, when the sentence is death or life imprisonment the court must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant in accordance with A.C.A. §16-91-113, and a sentence of 540 years is a De facto sentence of life without parole. However the Supreme Court Of Arkansas has continually refused, avoided, and resisted their duty and responsibility to comply with it's own rules and conduct the required review by obstructing in an ever increasing number of instances to accept any of my Pro Se pleadings or motions, to wit: court orders entered 01 Mar 17 CR-16-964 denying my motion to file a Pro Se Supplemental Appellant Brief; order of 05 Api 2017, CR- 16-964, denial of motion for reconsideration of denial to file Supplemental Pro Se Appellant Brief; order of 19 July 17, CR- 16-964, denial of my Pro Se motion for a copy of the record; order of 09 Nov 17, CR-16-964, denial of my Pro Se motion for copy of the record on appeal and related documents with a number of other actions pending before the court.
The originating court is never divested of jurisdiction to review its own judgments predicated on alleged errors of abuse, fact, or merit. The purpose for seeking leave from the Appellant Court after an appeal has been filed, is not because the originating court has been deprived of it's jurisdiction to review it's own judgment, but to seek a stay in the Appellant Process to allow the originating court ample opportunity to conduct a review of it's actions and take any necessary corrective measures to core any abuses, errors, defects or deficiencies of a Constitutional or Statutory nature that may be found. Thereby, possible eliminating the need for the Appellant Court further allowing for a potential decrease in the work load of the court, decreasing unnecessary delays or the needless increase in the cost of litigation and to support the effective and expeditions administration of the business of the courts, increasing the efficiency of the judiciary. Once the Appellant process is completed, an opinion delivered and a mandate issued, it is then counter productive and there is no further valid logical, legitimate or justifiable need to seek the Appellant Courts involvement, until such time as an appeal of the originating court regarding it's review may become necessary. Post Conviction Remedies, 2015 Edition, §3, Brian R. Meanse 2015, Thomas and Reuters.
Black's Law Dictionary, (10th ed. 2014) defines Coram Nobis as " A writ of error taken from a judgment of the king's bench (Before Us) refers to the Sovereign, in contract to the writ Coram Vobis (Before You) which refers to any court other than king's bench, esp. the court of common pleas. A writ of error directed to a court for review of its own judgment and predicated on alleged errors of fact. "Yet the Supreme Court Of Arkansas vehemently poses aligns, and claims themselves to be as the king's bench, enacting their own rule, Rule 60(k), Ark. R. Civ. P. contrary to Article 7, Section 4, of the Arkansas Constitutio; this rule is legislative in nature and is not Constitutionally allowed; To abolish any opposition to their position that the court holds a status of Sovereign, where no such status exist. No individual serving or employed 10 in any world-of-man Government constructs Constitutional or Legislative created position or capacity is entitled to immunity in any form or fashion for their conduct or decisions made in the course of their duties. The founders of the American Republic found it so sacred, compelling and important that the living breathing sentient nature mortal be recognized as by and for the Sovereign superior to any world-of-man Government constructs that they decisively acknowledged this in the creation and textualization of the founding documents. Moreover the founders sought specifically to abolish the venue of the king's bench as they found the practices and customs to be of such abhorrence, corrupt, abusive, and tyrranical to have expressed it in the Declaration of Independence as causes and purposes for seeking separation and Independence from the English Monarchy. With the intent, purpose, and design of the courts in the American Republic to be patterned after the common pleas venue of the english commonwealth where the court was an impartial, unbiased, non-interested third party, present to assure that Constitutional and Statutory provisions where honored to allow proper fact finders to render a judgment based solely on evidence properly submitted and adjudicated at trial. That is to have been and shall remain the sole purpose for the courts within the United States. However with the creation of a "Criminal Division" venue and the advent of a "State Prosecutor," who as an interloper, illegally and improperly takes on the role as plaintiff / victim, usurping the rights and responsibilities of the true Sovereign. The king's bench venue was recreated and the "State Court" is no longer an impartial, unbiased, non-interested third party, but is now inextratiably intertwined with the "State Prosecutor" through the simple logic that a "house divided against itself cannot prosper" the "State Court" by necessity must side and stand with the "State Prosecutor" or create a way to.
Justice Mark Lindsay's decision and ruling of 10 July 2017 denying Appellants petition for writ of Coram Vobis for want or jurisdiction is contrary to the scope and purpose of a writ of Coram Vobis and inconsistent with Superior Court Ruling's. See Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, (1984); Loveless v. State, 2006 w1246552
The object of Coram Vobis is to bring to light errors and / or ommission of fact that the trial court could not have avoided - mistakes that, if known at the time of trial, would have prevented the entry of the judgment, clerical errors by assistance, mistakes in the process of notice and pleadings and events outside the court room that call into question the reliability of the action taken inside. Post Conviction Remedies 2015 Edition, §3:2, Brian R Meanse 2015, Thomas & Reuters.
A Writ of Coram Vobis is a writ of error directed to a court for review of its own judgment and predicate on alleged errors and / or ommission of fact as defined by Black's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014).
There is in this country no Sovereign who is understood to sit in any court, and it is never the case that a writ is addressed to another arm of the Sovereign that issued it, as in the case of a Writ of Coram Nobis. Accordingly, it can be argued that the Coram Vobis form of the writ is appropriate here - Post Conviction Remedies, 2015 Edition, §3:3, Brian R Meanse 2015, Thomas & Reuters.
The Writ of Coram Vobis is a legal procedure to fill a gap in the legal system to provide relief that was not available at trial because a fact existed which was not known to the
11 defendant at the time and relief is not available on appeal because it is not in the record. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, (1984); Loveless v. State, 2006 WL246552, CR-05-227, 02 Feb 2006, Ark. While Appellant was in the custody of the Washington County Detention Center awaiting trial he was not allowed access to a law library or legal material to aid in his defense throughout the duration of his incarceration he continuously requested access to legal books and material but was told that the detention center did not have a legal library. This is illegal in that it is a right secured by the Constitutions, Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article two, Subsections Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten of the Constitution of the State Of Arkansas, and is therefore a denial of due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, it has been held in several cases that denying prisoners access to law libraries and legal materials is the same as denying them access to the courts. see Klinger v. Department of Correction, 107 F.3d 609; Johnson v. Avery, 89 S.Ct. 747; (1969) and White v. Kautzky, 366 F. Supp.2d 1042 where it states a prisoners right of access to the courts applies not only to the actual denial of access, but also to situations in which the defendant has been denied meaningful access by same impediment put up by the state. This includes the denial of clause four of §10, Article two of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas which secures the right of a defendant to himself be heard as well as his counsel, whether retained or appointed.
A Writ of Coram Vobis may be considered by a circuit Court [trial court] only after the completion of the direct appeal. Loveless v. State 2006 WL182067, CR-05-648, 26 Jan 2006, Ark.
12 REASONS FOR GRANTING MY PETITION
This is a case involving issues of first impressions, Issues of significant Public Interest, and of substantial Questions of Law concerning the interpretation of Statues and Acts of the Legislature. A review of this instant case would help to illuminate unconstitutional actions and omissions of the States.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has departed so far from the customary and common place practices of the judiciary as expressed and defined by The Constitution Of The United States and Federal Statues and sanctioned such departures within the states lower courts as to present the belief that as a whole the State of Arkansas is above and beyond adherence to Federal Statues and Constitutional Law, and issue thought long to have been resolved with the conclusion of the U.S. Civil War, as to call for the exercise of the United States Supreme Courts supervisory power as found expressed in Articles Three and Six of the United States Constitution.
The courts below have issued rulings and opinions in direct conflict with Federal Statues, Constitutional Law, and accepted and usual practices of the judiciary as to be on the face at least the appearance of impropriety if not impropriety in and of itself and creates a derogatory and negative impact on the public's confidence in the Independence, Integrity, and Impartiality of all the judiciary, and as such compels this court to take up the matter, rendering a ruling on the square and by the compass. See Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6, Ark. Code Judicial Conduct
The courts below have not only violated my personal guaranteed and secured Constitutional and Statutory Rights, but have set upon a dangerous path for creating a precedent to allow the ignoring, invalidating, and dismissing the protected and expressed constitutional and statutory rights of the public at large. There by creating a necessity for this court to involve itself for the benefit and defense of all the many peoples.
If there is no civil remedies readily available to the people, who are the true Sovereign as found expressed in the founding documents, by which they can hold their public servants accountable, then the innumerable live sacrifice to establish and maintain this Republic were all for naught.
This court, as with all courts have a divine and constitutional obligation not to protect, but to hold accountable those individuals serving or employed in public positions of trust for their acts, omissions, conduct, and decisions while conducting their public duties as it is defined and expressed in the founding documents of the Republic.
That all courts have an ethical and moral duty to act in accordance with the biblical principles upon which the institution finds its foundation. see Exodus 18:15-23. And we must look to the scriptures for how to apply the justice of Elohim. That includes the magistrates being of a righteous and upright nature, trust worthy, spurn ill-gotten gain, and keep their hands from holding bribes. 13 8) All courts have a responsibility to uphold the highest standards as required of them by the Biblically Based founding documents of the Republic; and to affirm the lower courts decision in this instant case is an out right declaration that these Republic creating documents. upon which all courts receive their authority are no longer valid and therefore dissolve this Republic and all of its institutions in De facto.
14 CONCLUSION
Because litigant is Pro Se, without any formal legal Education or Professional Legal Training the court, before granting any motion of opposing party, or the entry of any order or judgment, is to review and consider as eviedence all of the Pro Se litigants contentious offered in motions and pleadings, where such contentious are based on personal knowledge set forth in facts that would be admissible as evidence and where Pro Se litigant attested under penalty of purjury to the truth of the contents, Jones v. Blanas, 398 F.3d 918, (9th Cir 2004) Being that a violation of Constitutional and Statutory rights is never deminimis, a phrase meaning so small or trifling that the law takes no account of it, The Supreme Court explained the reason for this rule, "by making deprivation of such Constitutional Rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury. The law recognizes the importance to orginized society that those rights be scrupulously observed." Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.CT. 2321, (1991); Estate of Farrar v. Cain, 941 F.2d 1311, (5th 1991); Lewis v. Wood, 848 F.2d 649, (5th Cir 1988).
A Writ of Coram Vobis may be granted when:
Petitioner has shown that some fact existed which without fault of his own was not presented to the court at trial, and which if presented would have prevented the rendition of the judgment;
Shows that the newly discovered evidence does not go to the merits
Has shown that facts were not known or not presented, and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered at any time substantially earlier than the time of the motion. Post Conviction Remedies 2015 Edition, §2:3, Brian R. Means C 2015, Thomas and Reuters.
Wherefore premises considered having demonstrated the merits and provided essential material facts I respectfully request and believe an honorable court will find it reasonable to: Reverse the lower court, Reviewing all the documents submitted and render a decision on the square and by the compass, Remand this matter back to the trial court for proceedings consistent to a Writ of Coram Vobis and not inconsistent with the opinion of this court; Sua Sponte the title of this petition to that which is most appropriate; dismiss the judgment and conviction of the trial court out right for the case being illegal on its face due to the violations of my Sovereign, Constitutional, and Statutory Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities; That I be awarded reasonable compensation for my time and effort expended; be reimbursed for expenses incurred by the necessity to bring this matter before this court; Plus any and all other relief and expiation that may be available, just and proper.
~e 4ely Submffed,i 01 fnes E. Whitney, Pro Se ui Juris In Propria Persona 163817 P.O. Box 600 Grady, Arkansas 71644-0600 15 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
I, James E. Whitney, am a living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal, not simply because I say I am, but by the fact that I was born a sovereign as bestowed upon me by my creator, Lord and King, YHWH, the source of breath of all flesh, Numbers 27:16 and not by way of any World-of-Man Government constructs, be they allegedly a state, nation or the like, and such sovereign may not be modified, altered, restricted or diminish but by consent and I have given no such consent nor have I knowingly entered into any contract or agreement with any World-of-Man Government.
I reserve all of my freedoms, liberties, rights and protections at all times and I wave none of them at any time nor will I sign anything that relieves me of my security interest s beneficiary.
I do not recognize any pledges, nor any loyalties or allegiances to any such World-of- Man Government constructs. My loyalty and allegiances is pledged, in Toto, without reservation, only to the Supreme Sovereign Ruler, YHWH, Leviticus 18:4-5; Deuteronomy 13:5.
I was made in the image of my Creator, Lord and King, Ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, (YHWH) Genesis 1:26-27.
I was given dominion over and tasked as a steward and caretaker over all that is above, below, and on the earth by the Supreme Sovereign ruler, YHWH. Genesis 1:28-30.
I am only subject onto the Kingdom of YHWH. Exodus 19:5-6; Exodus 34:10.
As a first born son of a descendant of Israel, I am further consecrated as an Ambassador of the Kingdom of YHWH. Exodus 13:1-2.
There is no other authority, instruction, law or rules, but as those provided by YHWH and recorded in Torah, Leviticus 18:4-5; Leviticus 26:46; Deuteronomy 4:2.
Although I any reside within or be confined in the lands or territories of any World-of- Man Government constructs. I am neither to bend knee to or confirm with their ways or practices. I operate and function as a Vassal And Ambassador for the expression of the Kingdom of YHWH, Exodus 23:24; Deuteronomy 13:1; Judges 2:2.
There has been no evidence or documentation provided of my liability to any world- of-man government construct or that any world-of-man constitutions operate upon me and therefore subject me to any of their rules regulations or statues or that I am under contract to or have entered into an agreement with any World-of-man Governments or any of their agencies or sub-divisions.
The world-of-man constructs constitutions, rules, regulations and statues only apply to those employed or serving in constitutional or legislatively created positions or offices and those who contract with the state. The purpose of the constitutions, agreements, contract, covenants, social compacts and statues are to limit those in constitutional and legislative created 16 positions or offices and those who contract with government units, to the end of protecting the living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortals whom may reside within their sphere of influence from corruption and abuses of power that have previously been experienced.
1 am not a person regulated by the "state", I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the constitutions or legislators. The world-of-man constitutions and legislators do not dictate what I do or do not do, nor am I currently under oath of office, and rescind any and all prior endorsements of such, I further decline any and all offers to contract and reserve the right to reject any and all, I do not concede to any presumptions to the contrary, whether known or unknown to me, with or without my consent.
The world-of-man government construct, nor any of its agencies or subdivisions, may not lawfully move against me, as they did not create the office or position of the Sovereign. Therefore they do not regulate or control those in the position of being the Sovereign, and I as a Sovereign, have not delegated to them any such power. No world-of-man government construct, nor any of its agencies or subdivisions may ascribe penalties for the breach of the office of the Sovereign.
I am not a party or signatory nor knowingly a descendant of any party or signatory of any of the contracts, covenants, or social compacts that establish or make up the World-of-Man Governments of the United States or any of its subdivisions.
The living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortals, are the creators of the "state". My freedoms, liberties, rights, and protections are long antecedent to the creation of the "state" and are inherent, they are not dependant on any world-of-man government construct, benefit, constitutions or piece of legislation, the are non-negotiable, the "state" can list them and protect them that is their duty, buy they are not their's to give away, alter, restrict or diminish in any way and they can not be waived under any circumstances or act. Nor do I agree or consent to any world-of-man "Government" to subjugate me, my freedoms, liberties, rights, or protections.
I am not named in any world-of-man constructs, constitutions, covenants, social compacts or statues of the United States or The State of Arkansas. If otherwise, produce the evidence and documentation where I am.
The Supreme Court held in Hale v. Hinldey 201 U.S. 43 (1905) that since the private man [the living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal] is not named in the statues and all statues are for the regulation of businesses due to the fact that the natural persons rights existed long antecedent to the organization of the "state" he owes no such duty or loyalty to such, since he receives nothing therefrom.
That I am being held captive and illegally by the State of Arkansas. As a prisoner in their Department of Correction, at Varner/Varner Supermax Unit in Grady, Arkansas, being confined and sequestered in a cell 24/7 approximately 8' x 17' in size under Extended Protective Restrictive Housin pursuant to threats of great harm from both staff and prisoners alike since 14 Nov. 2016.
17 The the sentence of 540 years, which I am currently being held captive under, is a de facto sentence of life without parole, the indictment being duplicitous in nature. The sentence imposed in contrary to and in violation of the Constitutions, Laws, Statues, and Treaties of the United States and the State of Arkansas. See Arkansas Code Annotated (A.C.A) 5-1-109; § 5-1- 110; § 5-1-112; § 5-4-501; § 5-27-602; § 16-90-107; § 16-91-113; 1993 Arkansas Law Act 550; Arkansas Sentencing Standards Grid; U.S. Constitution Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14; Constitution for the State ofArkansas Article 2 §1, §2, §6, §8, §9, §15 and §29.
No individual serving or employed in any World-of-Man construct constitutional or legislative created position or capacity is entitled to immunity in any form or fashion for their conduct or decisions made in the course of their duties. The founders of the American Republic found it so sacred, compelling and important that the living breathing sentient natural mortal be recognized as by and for the sovereign superior to any World-of-Man Government Constructs that they decisively acknowledged this in the creation and textualization of the founding documents. See The declaration of Independence, 04 July 1776; The preamble and Tenth Amendment to The Constitution of The United States, 17 September 1787; The Preamble to Article 2 §§ 1 and 29 of The Constitution of The State of Arkansas, to protect the living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal, not to subjugate or rule over them, To Put An End to such corruption and abuse of power as had been previously experienced, so that they should ever be extirpated. Moreover, these founding documents as well as any legislature or statues to be created were/are to be controlling and limiting only over those individuals employed or serving in Constitutional or Legislative created positions as well as those who contract with such world- of-man government construct and I am neither one who holds any such position nor am I under any coontract or entered into any agreement with any of these constructs, See Afrovini v. Rusk. 87 S.CT. 1600 (1967); Padleford, Fav & Co. v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savanna/i. (1854).
Allegiance and loyalty in the United States is not due any of the three branches, but from the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary to the natural people, with whom the sovereign power is found and this relationship cannot be severed but by consent of the natural person, See Afrovim v. Rusk. 87 S.CT. 1600 (1967); Founding Documents.
Any statue, which in general terms divest any pre-existing rights, freedoms, liberties, privileges or protections will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect. See U.S. v. United Mine Workers, 67 S.CT. 677 (1947).
It is incorrect to apply or utilize the title of Sovereign to refer to any World-of-Man Government constructs, such as The United States, The State of Arkansas, their agencies, department, subdivisions or those who serve in any capacity thereof. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 states: "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed that whenever any form of Government becOmes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The founding document of the American Republic goes on further to state: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing in variably the object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, t is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government. "This is a 18 plain and clear demonstration that those who penned this document decisively acknowledged that the individual living breathing sentient mortal is by and far the Natural Sovereign Superior, this having been established by my Creator, Lord and King, YHWH, in beginning, and it is therefore improper and unconstitutional to refer to any World-of Man Government constructs by the title of Sovereign or to infer the powers of Sovereign upon them, be they allegedly a state, nation or the like.
The original intent, design and purpose of the courts in the American Republic was patterned after the common pleas venue of the English Common Wealth, where one individual took action against another in business matters or a individual sought redress against another person or the "Government" for a violation of some secured and protected right, freedom, liberty or privilege. Where the court was an impartial, un-bias, non-interested third party to assure Court Rules and Proceeding were adhered to and render a judgment based solely on the evidence adjudicated before a jury. That is to have been and shall be the sole purpose for the court in the American Republic. There is no provision or article to be found in any of the originating documents which permits the World-of-Man government to independently pursue, persecute or prosecute any natural person from which they derive their just powers or to divest the living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal of any of their powers of earth, laws of nature or unalienable rights as endowed by our Creator, YHWH. Exodus 18:15-23. In fact quite the oppiste is found to be expressed in the founding documents. See Hale v. Hinkle, 201 U.S. 43 (1905); U.S. v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947). To say otherwise is to say that the great experiment has failed, thus applying a failing grade to and rendering null and void- the documents upon which this Republic was formed and declaring that the United States of America no longer exist as- founded.
However, with the creation of a criminal division venue and the advent of a state prosecutor, usurping the role of the sovereign or victim proper to make the decision to pursue an action or more so improper when the World-of-Man Government construct presumes to become a victim when no such victim exist, one ends up with the recreation of the King's Bench venue that the founder of the Republic found so abhorrent and abominable as to have expressed that the abuses of the King's Bench as a number of the issues for which they found the need to separate and Declare Independence from the English Monarchy and penned them decisively in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 18, 21, and 23 of the Declaration of Independence of 1776. In the criminal division venue as with the King's Bench the state court's no longer a impartial, unbiased,uninterested third party but being inextratiable intertwined with the state prosecutor and through the simple logic that a house divided against itself cannot prosper by necessity the state court must side with the state prosecutor, with rare exception, who as an interloper has illegally and improperly taken on the role of victim with indifference and insolent as to whether or not there is an actual victim proper and disregarding the choice and option of any victim proper as to proceed or not with an action. This impropriety is demonstrated by Article 5 § 20 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas which state: "The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts," and Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-58-101 which states: "No action shall be entered upon the docket of any court nor any original mesne or final process issued in the action, except in criminal cases and cases where the state is Plaintiff, until the fees for entering the case upon the docket and for issuing the writ and the taxes thereon, if any, are paid, bond and security to the approval of the clerk given therefore." In other words the sovereign must pay a fee to access the state court, but the state prosecutor need not pay any fee to access their court, thereby 19 rendering the criminal court venue contrary to the originating documents of the American Republic and unconstitutional in nature, to publish an opinion otherwise is to rule that the documents upon which the United States of America was founded are null and void and the Republic which they formed no longer exist as it was intended and designed.
Expressio uniusest exclusio alterius
Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus
R4c),I SubrniUed, ôZO/o meE' Whitney, Pro Se ui Juris In Propria Persona #163817 P.O. Box 600 Grady, Arkansas 71644-0600
'All DECLARATION
I, James E. Whitney a living breathing sentient natural sovereign mortal, do hereby declare and verify, under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. §1746 and 18 U.S.C. A. §1621 that the above statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief as executed by my hand this day of__2018 C.E.
Deel
Ja3zI'es E. Whitney, Pro se S& Juris In Propria Persona
21