The Most Important SCOTUS Petition Filed This Term: 25-795

SCOTUS Case No.: 25-795, Sibley v. Watches et al. is proof of this maxim. This Second Amendment challenge started in 2018 when I was denied a pistol permit in New York based upon secret evidence from the Sheriff which the Licensing Officer refused to disclose to me.

Through the next seven years, the case metamorphosed into a forensic exposition of the descent of the New York State and federal justice systems far below Constitutional minimums. As a result, four (4) important questions are now presented to SCOTUS for review:

1. In this case, I proceeded as an in forma pauperis litigant seeking to avoid paying the filing fee of $450. Federal District Court Judge Geraci refused to rule on that request for seventy-nine (79) days thus denying me immediate access to Court for preliminary injunctive relief. In contrast, filing-fee litigants receive immediate access to court for injunctive relief. Hence, the first question presented to SCOTUS is whether poor people have the same right to immediate access to court as well-heeled litigants?

2. New York’s handgun licensing substantive law and licensing adjudicative practices denied me: (i) my Second Amendment rights, (ii) due process and (iii) equal protection. In particular, substantively, notwithstanding repeated SCOTUS cases regarding “good moral character” licensing regimes being unconstitutional, New York continued to use that standard in my case. Substantively, New York prohibited me from seeing the Sheriff’s secret report on me and denied my requests to present evidence on my own behalf.

3. Much more important than the particular trespasses upon my Constitutional rights detailed above, was the process of adjudication by both the New York and federal appellate courts of these issues. Here, New York’s appellate courts and the federal Second Circuit refused to address these and other significant issues I raised by summarily claiming those issues were “without merit”. By doing so, those judges impermissibly trespassed upon my right to “petition” and be meaningfully “heard”. If appellate courts can “black hole” issues by refusing to acknowledge, let alone address, those issues then the settled principle that litigants in similar situations should be treated the same, a fundamental component of stare decisis and the rule of law no longer exists. Hence, the third question for SCOTUS is whether judges can ignore issues with impunity?

4. Last, and most important as it challenges the intellectual integrity of SCOTUS, is the required corrigendum (a thing to be corrected, typically an error in a printed book) of 42 U.S.C. §1983, commonly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. That Act subjects state actors to personal liability for violating the federal civil rights of citizens. I sued several New York judges under that Act. District Court Judge Geraci held that those New York judges were immune from suit under that Act pursuant to Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554 (1967). In Pierson, SCOTUS held: “[J]judge[s are] immune from liability for damages for [] judicial acts was not abolished by §1983.” BUT: the Ku Klux Klan Act was printed wrong at 42 U.S.C. §1983 as it left out thirteen (13) words from the Ku Klux Klan Act which abolished the “absolute immunity” that judges have granted themselves. When the complete Ku Klux Klan Act is read in its entirety, Pierson and judicial immunity disappears.

Hence, the hyperbole is not hyperbole. If our Courts can act as this case so indisputably documents ‒ treating poor people differently, ignoring due process and significant legal issues and then misreading a statute to achieve desired results ‒ we no longer have a justice system, but “just-a-system”.

I invite you to read the short Petition; I believe you will be disturbed at how the legal system actually operates to favor of vested and well-funded interests.