Today Friday August 14th 2015 Ty Robben and Mike Weston along with some friends made that statement that the use of Summary Judgment is unconstitutional and a violation of the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantees the right to a civil jury trial.
I would like to thank the Courthouse security “Homeland Security” for being professional and “keeping us safe”! says Robben who also thanks the Reno Police Department who were on hand for what turned out to be a very, very casual protest.
We didn’t chalk the sidewalks even though we could have said Robben who said he will continue the “peaceful protest” and hopes other join him in solidarity. After all, an injustice to one is an injustice to all.
- If you live near Reno, Nevada we will be doing more protests in front of both the Reno Federal Court and the Washoe Courthouse on Sierra St. next week (08/17/205 to ???).
- If you have been victimized by judicial corruption, police corruption, or government corruption – come on out to out next protest.
- Keep checking back on this website for dates and times, bring a sign or hold one of ours, we have a ton of signs including the “worlds larges CRIME SCENE tape“. We’ll try and start by 9:00am and go to noon or longer (depending on wind).
- Incidentally, Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du over tuned by three-judge panel, Du’s conclusion was “speculative at best” and ordered her to reconsider the case.
Summary Judgment is unconstitutional.
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – – The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. This Essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. The Essay concludes that, despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional.
The Essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment. By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon the courts, the Essay argues that summary judgment may not be necessary to the judicial system but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.
read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional
Constitutional Conversation: 7th Amendment
Ty Robben on Infowars
Ty Robben at the Reno Monsanto protest showcasing the “World’s largest CRIME SCENE tape”