Afro-Americans/Blacks are victims of DERACINATION “forced Displacement” is taking place in the City of Los Angeles. REMOVAL OF PEOPLE FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY”
Forced displacement or forced immigration is the coerced movement of a person or people away from their home or home region and it often connotes violent coercion. Someone who has experienced forced displacement is a “forced immigrant”, a “displaced person” (DP), rarely also a “displacee”, or if it is within the same country, an internally displaced person (IDP). In some cases the forced immigrant can also become a refugee, as that term has a specific legal definition. A specific form of forced displacement is population transfer, which is a coherent policy to move unwanted groups, for example, as an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Another form is deportation.
The Above Photo Are The 9 Supreme Court Justices to whom my CASE #13-9007 went before 7/21/2014 .
My Case as the petitioner #13-9007 was Distributed For Conference in the Supreme Court Of The United States 4/23/2014 and was denied 7/21/2014.
I personally telephoned the Supreme Court to ask that there were many, many cases schedules for Conference that day and did the Justices take time to review my CASE #13-9007.
I have a question “Did the Justices take there time to actually review?” After reading PBS.Org, I believe there is a conflict of interest with the Justice(s) and the Respondent as far as having stock in the Respondent’s corporation, then I believe the Justice should have recuse themselves from my case #13-9007.
In my opinion unfairness towards my case #13-9007 during the 7/21/2014 Justices Supreme Court Of The United States Conference.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocketfiles%2F13-9007.htm A Justice(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States must recuse themselves from a case when the Justice(s) has financial interest a party. In my opinion when my case went before the Supreme Court their was a financial interest with the party I was suing. I also believe there was more than one justice and that is why my case was never heard.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people……- Abraham Lincoln
The Supreme Court Of The United States should not just be for the Rich Corporations. Such a Great INJUSTICE.
The 9 Supreme Court Of The United States in the years 2013 , 2014 and 2015
The Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term made history by striking down key elements of the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, both in 5 to 4 decisions. The percentage of 5-to-4 split cases this session was the court’s highest since 2008, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy most frequently voting with the majority. In the three major cases that ended the court’s term — affirmative action in higher education, the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act —Kennedy was the only justice in the majority each time.
- 10 decisions aligned with the conservative block
- 6 decisions aligned with the
- 3 decisions consisted of Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Breyer
- 1 consisted of Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan
- 1 consisted of Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan
- 1 consisted of Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan
- 1 consisted of Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan
I ask the clerk is it possible for the Justices to review all these cases in ONE DAY? He answered YES. My case did not receive Fair Attention and did Not Receive Fair Decision.
JUSTICE IS BLIND. “-This expression means that justice is impartial and objective. There is an allusion here to the Greek statue for justice, wearing a blindfold so as “not to treat friends differently from strangers”, or “rich people better than the poor ones.”
Remember what USA stands for. Peace Be Still. God loves and create all.
Now, the County U.S.C. Medical Center , currently known NOW as Keck Medical Center is the largest Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. During the time I wrote this article U.S.C. Medical Center was going to be shut down. Now, today with the help of the Keck Foundation it is the most most modern and advance Medical Center and the buildings are gorgeous with beautiful landscapes. I, also made a public statement during the Board of Supervisors meeting to please do not shut down U.S.C. Medical Center. Addie Miller wrote an article published in the Los Angeles Times Newspaper “City Times Voices” July 23, 1995 The Los Angeles Times from Los Angeles, California · Page 378 Publication: The Los Angeles Times i Location: Los Angeles, California Issue Date: Sunday, July 23, 1995
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S. Code § 2510 – Definitions,
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 119 › § 2510
(a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cell phones, computers, Internet Web pages or sites, Internet phones, hybrid cellular/Internet/wireless devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term is defined in;
(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:
(1) “Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.