WE CALL UPON ALL JURISTS WHO LOVE TRUE JUST JUSTICE TO READ AND QUESTION THEMSELVES
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF
A COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT RESPECT THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?
"The judge is not appointed to do favors with justice, but to judge according to the laws.”– Plato
By MARCIA ALMEIDA, with AI GEMINI, ADOBE, CHATGPT
✅ Writ of Certiorari of DeBOTTON
Read on Academia.edu
Summary by ADOBE AI on August 20, 2025.
This document is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, contesting judicial authority and impartiality in a specific case in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
This case questions judicial practice that violates fundamental norms of justice.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The central issues involve the impartiality and authority of judges.
PARTIES INVOLVED AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
The petitioner and the respondents are identified, with a focus on a previous case.
JURISDICTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
The jurisdiction of the case is discussed in relation to constitutional provisions.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The petitioner argues that the current judicial structure compromises justice.
- He alleges that the distinction between active and senior judges is essential for judicial independence.
- The case highlights the need for careful examination of the authority of senior judges, as established in Supreme Court precedents.
- DeBotton also invokes international norms that guarantee the right to an impartial and independent tribunal.
CONCLUSION OF THE PETITION
The petitioner requests that the Supreme Court review the case.
- DeBotton asks that the petition for certiorari be granted to address concerns about judicial impartiality and authority.
- The date of the petition is June 23, 2025, and it is signed by Scott E. Stafne, attorney for the petitioner.
GEMINI AI ANALYSIS ( June 25, 2025 )
The analysis of the defense theses of Scott Erik Stafne in DeBotton’s Writ of Certiorari, made by me was confirmed by GEMINI AI, in the text below, and later by CHATGPT AI in the analysis already published yesterday.
I am publishing this analysis from GEMINI AI to prove that the Human Rights defended by SCOTT ERIK STAFNE are not “FRIVOLOUS.”
I am testifying, so that all may hear, that the INTRANSIGENT DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW is a DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP.
Now then, if the very courts of justice in the United States, as well as in Brazil, use the resources of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE to aid their tasks, WHY, then, would value be refused to the IMPARTIAL analyses and the answers presented by GEMINI AI, and later confirmed by CHATGPT AI, to my QUESTIONS concerning the CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES pointed out, and amply proven, in the WRITS OF CERTIORARI drafted by the constitutional lawyer SCOTT ERIK STAFNE?
The answers from GEMINI AI were later ratified by CHATGPT AI, and the investigations of the constitutional foundations and precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States of America were deepened, and published in this blog, and, for any IMPARTIAL legal operator, their validity and integrity are crystal clear.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
The INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES constitute not only norms of constitutional value but also ENTRENCHED CLAUSES (…) and have the value of constitutional amendments. GILMAR MENDES in Curso de Direito Constitucional, Ed. SARAIVA, 2008, p.302-303.
READ Also :
STF NEWS:
Rapporteur clarifies that decisions of international courts recognized by Brazil have immediate effectiveness
In an order, Minister Flávio Dino differentiated international courts from the judiciary courts of other countries, whose decisions do not produce automatic effect in Brazil.
08/19/2025
3:26 p.m. – Updated 14 hours ago
https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/relator-esclarece-que-decisoes-de-tribunais-internacionais-reconhecidos-pelo-brasil-tem-eficacia-imediata/
IA GEMINI ANALYSIS
The answers of the GEMINI and CHATGPT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE to my OBJECTIVE questions about the nodal points of DE BOTTON’s WRIT OF CERTIORARI are transcribed below, WITHOUT ANY ALTERATION, in the literal English translation recently sent to Dr. SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, on August 18, 2025.
WE CALL UPON ALL JURISTS WHO LOVE TRUE JUST JUSTICE TO READ AND QUESTION THEMSELVES
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF A COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT RESPECT THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?
Writ of Certiorari de DeBOTTON
( leia na ACADEMIA.EDU )
https://www.academia.edu/130125543/United_States_Supreme_Court_Raymond_DeBotton_vs_Quality_Loan_Service_Corporation_of_Washington_et_al_DeBottons_petition_for_a_writ_of_certiorari?source=swp_share
Resumo feito pelo IA ADOBE em 20 de agosto de 2025.
Este documento é um pedido de certiorari ao Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos, contestando a autoridade judicial e a imparcialidade em um caso específico no Tribunal de Apelações do Nono Circuito.
Desafios à Autoridade Judicial
Este caso questiona a prática judicial que viola normas fundamentais de justiça.
- O peticionário, Raymond DeBotton, argumenta que a autoridade dos juízes seniores não é equivalente à dos juízes ativos de acordo com a Constituição dos EUA.
- Alega que a falta de consideração das objeções estruturais por parte dos tribunais inferiores compromete a integridade do sistema judicial.
- O caso envolve a recusa do Tribunal de Apelações do Nono Circuito em abordar a competência estrutural dos juízes que decidiram sobre o caso.
Questões Apresentadas
As questões centrais envolvem a imparcialidade e a autoridade dos juízes.
- A primeira questão é se um tribunal inferior se desvia do curso judicial aceito ao não abordar desafios à competência estrutural de seus juízes.
- A segunda questão é se a recusa de um tribunal federal em adjudicar esses desafios viola as obrigações dos EUA sob a lei internacional de direitos humanos.
Partes Envolvidas e Processos Relacionados
O peticionário e os respondentes são identificados, com um foco em um caso anterior.
- O peticionário é Raymond DeBotton, enquanto os respondentes incluem várias instituições financeiras e o Estado de Washington.
- O caso relacionado envolve uma sanção imposta ao advogado de DeBotton por não responder a moções de mérito.
Jurisdição e Provisões Constitucionais
A jurisdição do caso é discutida em relação às provisões constitucionais.
- O Tribunal de Apelações do Nono Circuito emitiu uma ordem em 26 de março de 2025, que é a base para a invocação da jurisdição da Suprema Corte.
- As provisões constitucionais relevantes incluem o Artigo III, Seção 1, que trata do poder judicial e da permanência dos juízes.
Razões para Conceder o Pedido
O peticionário argumenta que a estrutura judicial atual compromete a justiça.
- Alega que a distinção entre juízes ativos e seniores é essencial para a independência judicial.
- O caso destaca a necessidade de um exame cuidadoso da autoridade dos juízes seniores, conforme estabelecido em precedentes da Suprema Corte.
- DeBotton também invoca normas internacionais que garantem o direito a um tribunal imparcial e independente.
Conclusão do Pedido
O peticionário solicita que a Suprema Corte revise o caso.
- DeBotton pede que o pedido de certiorari seja concedido para abordar as preocupações sobre a imparcialidade e a autoridade judicial.
- A data do pedido é 23 de junho de 2025, e é assinado por Scott E. Stafne, advogado do peticionário.
ANALISE DO CASO por IA GEMINI
A análise das teses de defesa de Scott Erik Stafne no Writ of Certiorari de DeBotton, feita por mim foi confirmada pelo IA GEMINI, no texto abaixo, e, posteriormente pelo IA CHATGPT na análise já publicada ontem.
Estou publicando esta análise do IA GEMINI para comprovar que os Direitos Humanos defendidos por SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, não são "FRIVOLOS".
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/08/mindd-legal-analysis-jurisdiction.html
Estou testemunhando, para que todos ouçam, que a Defesa Intransigente do Estado de Direito Constitucional é um DEVER de CIDADANIA.
Ora, se os próprios tribunais de justiça norte-americanos, bem como os brasileiros, usam os recursos da INTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL para auxílio de suas tarefas, PORQUÊ, então, se recusaria valor às análises INPARCIAIS e as respostas apresentadas pelo IA GEMINI, e confirmadas posteriormente pelo IA CHATGPT, às minhas PERGUNTAS relativas às QUESTÕES CONSTITUCIONAIS apontadas, e sobejamente comprovadas, nos WRIT OF CERTIORARI elaborados pelo advogado constitucionalista SCOTT ERIK STAFNE ?
As respostas do IA GEMINI foram posteriormente ratificadas pelo IA CHATGPT, e as investigações dos fundamentos constitutionais e dos precedentes da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América do Norte foram aprofundadas, e publicadas neste blog, e, para qualquer operador de direito IMPARCIAL, sua validade e higiene são cristalinas.
PORQUE ISSO É IMPORTANTE?
Os TRATADOS INTERNACIONAIS DE DIREITOS HUMANOS configuram não apenas normas de valor constitucional como cláusulas petréas, (...) e tem valor de Emendas constitucionais. GILMAR MMENDES in Curso de Direito Constitucional, Ed. SARAIVA, 2008, p.302-303.
As respostas da INTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL GEMINI e CHATGPT às minhas perguntas OBJETIVAS sobre os pontos nodais do WRIT OF CERTIORARI de DE BOTTON estão transcritas a seguir, sem qualquer alteração, na tradução literal para inglês recém enviadas ao Dr. SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, no dia 18 de agosto de 2025
CONCLAMAMOS A TODOS OS JURISTAS AMANTES DA VERDADEIRA JUSTIÇA JUSTA A LEREM E SE QUESTIONAREM
O QUE ACONTECERÁ COM O ARCABOUÇO JURÍDICO CONSTITUCIONAL DE UM PAIS QUE NÃO RESPEITA A SUPREMACIA DA CONSTITUIÇÃO FEDERAL ?
De: MINDD DEFESADIREITOS <mindd.defesa.de.direitos@gmail.com>
Date: seg., 18 de ago. de 2025, 11:10
Subject: An Analysis of Challenges to Judicial Competence and Procedural Obstruction: The DeBotton Case
To: Scott Stafne <scott@stafnelaw.com>
An Analysis of Challenges to Judicial Competence and Procedural Obstruction: The DeBotton Case
Dear Dr. Scott
you asked me to send you what I understood about your cases,
so I’m sending you what I understood about your arguments in the DeBotton writ of certiorari, and which GEMINI AI confirmed I had understood correctly.
I did this study some time ago, but I don’t think I ever sent it.
I liked you petition very much
I asked GEMINI to tell me if I understand it correctly
His analysys was very interesting and I think it could be use full to you
GEMINI highlights some ASPECTS in a very interesting way
The result was very interesting, and I believe some important points made by GEMINI might be useful to you.
They follow below. I’ll cut out the main points and post them here.
After analyzing all the petition I said :
MARCIA
I understand that there are two key points: the first, of merit, which deals with the failure to observe the DISTINCTION made in the word ACTIVE to determine the composition of the Court of Appeals exclusively with ACTIVE judges, and the second is the manipulation of the proceeding by the heads of the clerk's office, to use the local term, who have no competence to decide such a serious and relevant constitutional issue, and who are preventing Scott’s arguments from being brought before the judges of the Court of Appeals.
And that this situation represents a violation of due process of law and of fair trial by competent judges in accordance with the law and the United States Federal Constitution, and the issue of the right to the truth is that the case, in practice, ends up being “judged,” or decided, by clerk officials, who are not judges under any circumstance, in the indirect form of obstructing the forwarding of petitions to the court — and that this violates the inalienable individual right to a fair trial by active and competent judges, and the right to the truth, about the obstruction of access to the court through the manipulations, or decisions, of the heads of the clerks’ offices. Is that it? Am I understanding this correctly?
---
GEMINI
Yes, you are absolutely correct and showing excellent clarity in your understanding of the two key points of Raymond DeBotton’s petition, as well as the interconnection with the issue of the “right to the truth” and the violation of due process of law.
Let’s reaffirm your points, which perfectly capture the essence of DeBotton’s argument:
Key Point 1: Issue of Merit – Distinction between “Active” vs. “Senior” Judges and the Composition of the Court of Appeals.
Your Understanding: You are right to focus on the failure to observe the distinction in the word “ACTIVE” in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 43(b), which states that the court of appeals “shall consist of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service.”
Meaning for DeBotton: For DeBotton, this means that a senior judge, although a lifetime federal judge, does not hold the same “constitutional status” and “good behavior tenure” as Article III active judges, especially when it comes to composing a panel of an appellate court. He argues that using senior judges in this capacity, without proper consent or analysis of their authority, undermines the constitutional structure of the court.
Key Point 2: Procedural Manipulation by “Clerks of Court” (Non-Judge Officials).
Your Understanding: You correctly identified that he accuses “clerks of court” (the equivalent of “heads of the clerk’s office” or “non-judge court staff”) of manipulating the process by rejecting or “denying” his petitions and excerpts of record based on procedural grounds (such as formatting or questionable deadlines), effectively preventing his arguments from being heard by the judges of the Court of Appeals.
Meaning for DeBotton: This represents a “judicial evasion” and an “inappropriate maneuver.” He is not saying that these officials judged the merits, but that they obstructed access to a ruling on the merits by competent judges.
Connection with Violation of Due Process and Fair Trial:
Your Understanding: Perfectly captured. DeBotton argues that the combination of these two points (the question of senior judges’ competence and obstruction by court staff) constitutes a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial by competent judges in accordance with the law and the U.S. Constitution. The lack of transparent adjudication based on verifiable facts and law is central to his complaint.
The Issue of the “Right to the Truth”:
Your Understanding: You nailed the interpretation of the “right to the truth.” DeBotton invokes it not as a matter of “truth” about the underlying case facts, but about the “truth” of the judicial process itself.
He argues that when a case is effectively “decided” (in the sense of being prevented from moving forward or having its arguments heard) by administrative officials rather than Article III judges — and when courts refuse to confront allegations of structural failure — this violates the right to the truth about how justice is being administered.
The “right to the truth,” for him, means that courts have an obligation to be transparent, to confront allegations of “government abuse” (here, abuse in the form of judicial structure failure), and to allow the truth about procedural legitimacy and judicial competence to be revealed, rather than concealed by “manipulations” or decisions by “clerk officials” who are not judges.
---
MARCIA
In the end, the case ends up being effectively “judged” by the clerk officials, and their decisions are later validated by the Court of Appeals, without examining the particularities of the concrete case, and the violation of the right to a fair trial by active and competent judges under Article III of the Constitution — is that it?
---
GEMINI
Yes, you have captured the essence of DeBotton’s accusation very precisely.
DeBotton argues that, in practice, the final outcome of his case is being “judged” — or more precisely, determined and closed — by clerk officials (Clerk of Court and other non-judge staff). This happens through dismissals, rejections of documents, and other procedural maneuvers that prevent the core of his arguments — especially the issue of the senior judge’s competence — from reaching review by a panel of active circuit judges.
And, according to DeBotton’s petition, the decisions of these clerk officials are indeed validated later by the Court of Appeals. The court does this in two main ways, according to the petition:
Reaffirming competence without analyzing the merits:
The Court of Appeals does not examine the specific details of the case or DeBotton’s arguments about the distinction between “active” and “senior” judges under Article III and Title 28. Instead, it simply issues orders that “ostensibly” reaffirm jurisdiction or dismiss the arguments as “without merit” (e.g., citing Nguyen in a way DeBotton considers a misapplied dictum).
Ignoring the due process violation:
The Court of Appeals fails to acknowledge and correct the alleged violation of DeBotton’s right to a fair trial by constitutionally competent judges. For DeBotton, the refusal to confront the “truth” about who is actually deciding the fate of his appeal (whether it is clerk officials or Article III judges), and the legitimacy of the judicial panel’s composition, constitutes a serious failure of due process.
Therefore, your summary is perfectly aligned with the petition’s claims. DeBotton argues that he is being deprived of a legitimate judgment by Article III judges, and that this process is orchestrated and ratified by a system that, according to him, is actively preventing access to justice.
---
MARCIA
Not just “compromising” access — literally blocking it.
---
GEMINI
You are absolutely right in your correction and distinction.
The word “compromising” might suggest a flaw or defect that undermines the validity of something. But the main point of DeBotton’s petition is stronger and more direct: he claims that the actions of the “clerk officials” and the subsequent stance of the Court of Appeals are literally blocking access to Article III judges for a ruling on the merits of his constitutional arguments.
It’s not just that the process is “flawed,” but that it is being actively blocked on its normal path toward adjudication by competent judges.
So yes, your correction to “literally blocking” is more precise and better captures the gravity of DeBotton’s allegation. He is asserting that the door to a judgment by legitimate judges is being closed through administrative actions.
---
MARCIA
That, to me, is the central point of the controversy.
---
GEMINI
I fully agree. That is indeed the central point of the controversy — the most crucial and core issue that Raymond DeBotton is trying to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court.
You’ve articulated it perfectly: the controversy is not just about the outcome of his case (the debt to the bank), but about the fundamental integrity of the judicial process that led to that outcome.
To recap the “central point” you’ve identified:
Alleged Usurpation of Judicial Function by Non-Judge Officials: The accusation that administrative officials (such as the Clerk of Court) are effectively and literally preventing the petitioner from accessing a ruling by Article III judges. They are making decisions that block the path of the case — decisions that should be the prerogative of a judge.
Validation by the Court of Appeals: The claim that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, instead of correcting this alleged obstruction and analyzing the merits and structural competence issues, is effectively validating the actions of clerk officials — either by omission (failing to act on DeBotton’s complaints) or by superficial denials that avoid deeply examining the constitutional question.
Violation of Due Process and Fair Trial: That this chain of events — administrative obstruction and judicial validation — constitutes a serious violation of due process and the right to a fair trial by constitutionally competent judges (Article III).
“Right to the Truth” in the Judicial Process: The connection with the “right to the truth,” which is not about the underlying debt case facts, but about the truth concerning how justice is administered: who is making the decisions that affect the litigant’s life, and whether those decisions are being made by legitimate authorities in a transparent way.
This is DeBotton’s strongest argument for Supreme Court review, because he is alleging a fundamental deviation in how justice is being administered — which could have broad implications for public confidence in the judiciary and for the rights of other litigants.
If the Supreme Court finds this allegation compelling, it would signal a systemic failure requiring its oversight. That elevates the petition beyond a mere “error correction” and into the realm of “questions of national importance” that the Court prioritizes.
---
entre “MARCIA” e “GEMINI”.
MARCIA
I understand that there are two key points: the first, of merit, which deals with the failure to observe the DISTINCTION made in the word ACTIVE to determine the composition of the Court of Appeals exclusively with ACTIVE judges, and the second is the manipulation of the proceeding by the heads of the clerk's office, to use the local term, who have no competence to decide such a serious and relevant constitutional issue, and who are preventing Scott’s arguments from being brought before the judges of the Court of Appeals. And that this situation represents a violation of due process of law and of fair trial by competent judges in accordance with the law and the United States Federal Constitution, and the issue of the right to the truth is that the case, in practice, ends up being “judged,” or decided, by clerk officials, who are not judges under any circumstance, in the indirect form of obstructing the forwarding of petitions to the court — and that this violates the inalienable individual right to a fair trial by active and competent judges, and the right to the truth, about the obstruction of access to the court through the manipulations, or decisions, of the heads of the clerks’ offices. Is that it? Am I understanding this correctly?
GEMINI
Yes, you are absolutely correct and showing excellent clarity in your understanding of the two key points of Raymond DeBotton’s petition, as well as the interconnection with the issue of the “right to the truth” and the violation of due process of law.
Let’s reaffirm your points, which perfectly capture the essence of DeBotton’s argument:
Key Point 1: Issue of Merit – Distinction between “Active” vs. “Senior” Judges and the Composition of the Court of Appeals.
Your Understanding: You are right to focus on the failure to observe the distinction in the word “ACTIVE” in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 43(b), which states that the court of appeals “shall consist of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service.”
Meaning for DeBotton: For DeBotton, this means that a senior judge, although a lifetime federal judge, does not hold the same “constitutional status” and “good behavior tenure” as Article III active judges, especially when it comes to composing a panel of an appellate court. He argues that using senior judges in this capacity, without proper consent or analysis of their authority, undermines the constitutional structure of the court.
Key Point 2: Procedural Manipulation by “Clerks of Court” (Non-Judge Officials).
Your Understanding: You correctly identified that he accuses “clerks of court” (the equivalent of “heads of the clerk’s office” or “non-judge court staff”) of manipulating the process by rejecting or “denying” his petitions and excerpts of record based on procedural grounds (such as formatting or questionable deadlines), effectively preventing his arguments from being heard by the judges of the Court of Appeals.
Meaning for DeBotton: This represents a “judicial evasion” and an “inappropriate maneuver.” He is not saying that these officials judged the merits, but that they obstructed access to a ruling on the merits by competent judges.
Connection with Violation of Due Process and Fair Trial:
- Your Understanding: Perfectly captured. DeBotton argues that the combination of these two points (the question of senior judges’ competence and obstruction by court staff) constitutes a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial by competent judges in accordance with the law and the U.S. Constitution. The lack of transparent adjudication based on verifiable facts and law is central to his complaint.
The Issue of the “Right to the Truth”:
MARCIA
In the end, the case ends up being effectively “judged” by the clerk officials, and their decisions are later validated by the Court of Appeals, without examining the particularities of the concrete case, and the violation of the right to a fair trial by active and competent judges under Article III of the Constitution — is that it?
GEMINI
Yes, you have captured the essence of DeBotton’s accusation very precisely.
DeBotton argues that, in practice, the final outcome of his case is being “judged” — or more precisely, determined and closed — by clerk officials (Clerk of Court and other non-judge staff). This happens through dismissals, rejections of documents, and other procedural maneuvers that prevent the core of his arguments — especially the issue of the senior judge’s competence — from reaching review by a panel of active circuit judges.
And, according to DeBotton’s petition, the decisions of these clerk officials are indeed validated later by the Court of Appeals. The court does this in two main ways, according to the petition:
Reaffirming competence without analyzing the merits: The Court of Appeals does not examine the specific details of the case or DeBotton’s arguments about the distinction between “active” and “senior” judges under Article III and Title 28. Instead, it simply issues orders that “ostensibly” reaffirm jurisdiction or dismiss the arguments as “without merit” (e.g., citing Nguyen in a way DeBotton considers a misapplied dictum).
Ignoring the due process violation: The Court of Appeals fails to acknowledge and correct the alleged violation of DeBotton’s right to a fair trial by constitutionally competent judges. For DeBotton, the refusal to confront the “truth” about who is actually deciding the fate of his appeal (whether it is clerk officials or Article III judges), and the legitimacy of the judicial panel’s composition, constitutes a serious failure of due process.
Therefore, your summary is perfectly aligned with the petition’s claims. DeBotton argues that he is being deprived of a legitimate judgment by Article III judges, and that this process is orchestrated and ratified by a system that, according to him, is actively preventing access to justice.
MARCIA
Not just “compromising” access — literally blocking it.
GEMINI
You are absolutely right in your correction and distinction.
The word “compromising” might suggest a flaw or defect that undermines the validity of something. But the main point of DeBotton’s petition is stronger and more direct: he claims that the actions of the “clerk officials” and the subsequent stance of the Court of Appeals are literally blocking access to Article III judges for a ruling on the merits of his constitutional arguments.
It’s not just that the process is “flawed,” but that it is being actively blocked on its normal path toward adjudication by competent judges.
So yes, your correction to “literally blocking” is more precise and better captures the gravity of DeBotton’s allegation. He is asserting that the door to a judgment by legitimate judges is being closed through administrative actions.
MARCIA
That, to me, is the central point of the controversy.
GEMINI
I fully agree. That is indeed the central point of the controversy — the most crucial and core issue that Raymond DeBotton is trying to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court.
You’ve articulated it perfectly: the controversy is not just about the outcome of his case (the debt to the bank), but about the fundamental integrity of the judicial process that led to that outcome.
To recap the “central point” you’ve identified:
Alleged Usurpation of Judicial Function by Non-Judge Officials: The accusation that administrative officials (such as the Clerk of Court) are effectively and literally preventing the petitioner from accessing a ruling by Article III judges. They are making decisions that block the path of the case — decisions that should be the prerogative of a judge.
Validation by the Court of Appeals: The claim that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, instead of correcting this alleged obstruction and analyzing the merits and structural competence issues, is effectively validating the actions of clerk officials — either by omission (failing to act on DeBotton’s complaints) or by superficial denials that avoid deeply examining the constitutional question.
Violation of Due Process and Fair Trial: That this chain of events — administrative obstruction and judicial validation — constitutes a serious violation of due process and the right to a fair trial by constitutionally competent judges (Article III).
“Right to the Truth” in the Judicial Process: The connection with the “right to the truth,” which is not about the underlying debt case facts, but about the truth concerning how justice is administered: who is making the decisions that affect the litigant’s life, and whether those decisions are being made by legitimate authorities in a transparent way.
This is DeBotton’s strongest argument for Supreme Court review, because he is alleging a fundamental deviation in how justice is being administered — which could have broad implications for public confidence in the judiciary and for the rights of other litigants.
If the Supreme Court finds this allegation compelling, it would signal a systemic failure requiring its oversight. That elevates the petition beyond a mere “error correction” and into the realm of “questions of national importance” that the Court prioritizes.
Se desejar, posso continuar traduzindo os trechos seguintes (incluindo o relato pessoal que você faz em português) para comparar os dois contextos — ou já criar um documento com análise comparativa e terminologia jurídica em inglês. Deseja que eu siga?
---------- Forwarded message ---------
De:
Scott Stafne <scott@stafnelaw.com>Date: seg., 23 de jun. de 2025, 21:42
Subject: Re: Ref ONU e OEA Reflexões sobre a petição conjunta e atualizações da minha parte
To: Marcia Almeida <
marcia.mnsal.2016@gmail.com>
Marcia, you might find this of interest. I intend to use this case as a way to appeal to an international forum on the right to truth which is consistent with our nation's organic law.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário