Justice Brennan, Rehnquist and “standing”

Greetings the jury from David Zaitzeff, [email protected]

If you are reading this, it is possible that I am being put on trial for the crime of vandalism or mischief.

If so, I have done this slight vandalism with documents or a swastika for the purpose of educating the public about unjust practices in the federal courts and made use of by the city of Seattle to suppress a valid, constitutional objection to their anti-weapons carry law.

It is not my opinion alone that the federal courts practice injustice by denying some people “standing” to sue in the federal courts. This concern was passionately expressed in the dissent in the case of Valley Forge Christian College, that dissent being written by Justice William Brennan in 1982.

The federal courts have practiced this injustice since that time in other cases and some people believe they were practicing this injustice prior to 1982.

This form of injustice is a loaded gun that the courts give to some defendants to kill some lawsuits.

The federal courts are not always self-correcting when they make errors. The federal courts do not seek the guidance of the public or of Congress in creating some of their self-created rules. The rules of standing were not written or reviewed by Congress. They were created by the courts and they are subject to change by the courts. There are some evil decisions on standing written by a man who seems to have been morally bankrupt—Rehnquist appointed by Nixon—& such decisions are still in force.

Rehnquist is known for having opposed overturning school segregation in the south while he was a law clerk to a justice. Rehnquist wrote that Plessy v. Ferguson (a segregation law) was right and should be affirmed. Rehnquist practiced using a concept called “standing” to prevent certain disagreeable cases, albeit reasonable and important cases in which the government was violating constitutional rights, from being heard in federal courts. We, the people, are the inheritors of his evil legacy.

Some of the rules of standing are bad Supreme court precedents which can and should be overturned—but in our system, the Supreme court at times does not get a lot of feedback about the harm its decisions cause when those decisions are wrong, legally, morally or both legally and morally.

The crime of malicious mischief does not have a defense for godly intent. It is possible that the judge in court in a trial would prevent me from presenting and explaining my motives. If I can’t explain my motives in the trial, I am asking you to not find me guilty and to not apply the mischief law. Leave city of Seattle and I to work on briefs and a resolution presented to the courts to reverse and overturn any evil precedents on the matter of “standing” without my being jailed or under a conviction at the time.

The Supreme court does at times overturn its own precedents and at times, public condemnation and bad results have played a part in such reversals. Court precedents and the rules of standing are not written in stone. In 1940, the Court issues a unanimous decision approving the ability of states and boards of education to require saying the pledge of allegiance. This decision led to fights, persecution and riots against Jehovah’s Witnesses, a sect whose members don’t believe in giving allegiance. Moreover, the Court’s decision was condemned and refuted in some newspaper editorials.
Within 3 years, a federal appeals court had written a decision disagreeing with the Supreme Court on that question, and then, the Supreme court itself decided to reverse itself, after seeing the harm of its unjust decision and realizing that its decision was harmful to religious liberty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *