Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In re Simpson

y Supreme Court, Us

FILED

Q1537 APR 1 1 2002

No. _____QRICE OF THE CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

LIZZIE LOU SIMPSON, pro se,

Petitioner,

SHERRI SIMPKINS, the City of Clinton and Police

Department; the District of Columbia and Police

Department; the U. S. Department of Justice,

the United States of America and

other Agencies and Government employees,

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Mandamus

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Fourth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Lizzie Lou Simpson, pro se

16 Sunset Boulevard

Clinton, South Carolina 29325

Telephone: (864) 833-6370

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Who is Veronica Butler? 1) an AKA using another

person’s social security number; 2) a court documented

Sedition Illegal Action person who tends to cause the

disruption and overthrow of our government. See trea-

son; 3) an alien without American citizenship living in

halfway houses under the guardianship of the govern-

ment; 4) a released prisoner with a mental illness in a

parole program known as RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY

TREATMENT CENTERS as a condition of probation; 5)

one who was simultaneously fulfilling the functions of a

penal institution in its concern for security and rehabilita-

tion; and 6) a person “bound up with the operation of the

State as a governmental entity” as a police officer and a

public school teacher.

2. Who is Sherri Simpkins? 1) an ex-officer with the

Clinton Police Department and now a released prisoner.

3. Was I singled out to give Ms. Butler a new identity as

an American with citizenship, an educated Cum Laude

Black female with relatives and friends, a public school

teacher with good credit, my own home, money, social

security number, car and was without a prison record or

ever having a mental illness?

4. Why did the U. S. Department of Justice and the

United States of America allow a court documented Sedi-

tion Illegal Action person to use them to bring an “infa-

mous crime” against me without an investigation and

rendered me convicted thereof incompetent as a witness

without evidence that I made threats to do bodily harm to

Ms. Butler at any time?

ll

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

5. Why did the United States of America carry me into

court on behalf of Ms. Butler and became a Party to my

false arrest, false imprisonment, deceptive contract by the

District’s attorney for my release and malpractice mental

reports by the Washington Hospital Center?

6. How can anyone say that I was not criminally

charged and write dismissals of my cases when the U. S.

Department of Justice and the United States of America

documents are proof in the District of Columbia, and the

ex parte application for my involuntary emergency civil

commitment and the newspaper article is proof in South

Carolina?

7. How can South Carolina write that it appeared that |

conceded to not being criminally charged when I

acquired the facts on my own to circumvent the State

from getting a dismissal or claiming it was not involved?

8. How can a dismissal occur before I have a fair hear-

ing under due process and equal protection of the laws;

and after I was criminally charged by the U. S. Depart-

ment of Justice, was arrested with an arrest warrant and

carried into court to answer by the United States of

America on behalf on Ms. Butler; and to answer on behalf

of Ms. Simpkins in South Carolina?

9. Why would the court document show my plea was

Not Guilty with a date to return to court for my jury trial

‘{ I had contracted the State’s Attorney to negotiate a

dismissal or a reduced sentence and I never paid her any

money except the contract was filled in after I had signed

for my release?

———————— ~~

ill

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

10. Why would I have entered my Not Guilty pleas in

the District of Columbia and in South Carolina if I

wanted my cases dismissed or reduced without my

timely requested jury trials as promised on court docu-

ments and guaranteed by the United States Constitution

and is automatic once my NOT GUILTY plea was

accepted and a list of juror’s names were given?

11. Who abolished our Constitutions to deprive me of

my civil and constitutional rights to my guaranteed jury

trials after being twice criminally charged by the govern-

ment and twice convicted as guilty by reason of insanity,

but was released as NOT MENTALLY ILL WITHOUT

ANY TREATMENTS which entitles me to my jury trials in

spite of any judgments?

12. Who abolished the First Amendment to our Consti-

tution to abridge my rights to petition the government for

a redress of grievances given by Congress?

13. How did the U. S. Department of Justice and the

United States of America reach an indictment charging

me with the “infamous crimes” without a record pre-

sented to the court from a grand jury as proof that the

jury had found me guilty by reason of insanity after

examining the evidence presented that there was a valid

case for the United States of America to have carried me

into court on so many different days on behalf of Ms.

Butler?

14. If no grand jury was used, how did I get a conviction

and was sentenced with the verdict of guilty by reason of

insanity by a judge, jury or a psychiatrist without being

A

ee

————————

———————————

—————— TITER E EEE TR TE

iv

QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued

evaluated; and on what merits did the District of Colum-

bia Public School System have for ordering me to take a

fitness for duty examination after my arrest and not

before?

15. How did my false arrests and false imprisonments

cause me to come down with their said incurable “para-

noid delusional disorder, persecutory type, etc.” mental

illnesses?

16. Why have I not received my guaranteed jury trials

since it was impossible for me to have been found guilty

by reason of insanity by the District of Columbia’s psy-

chiatrist who never evaluated me or by the South Caro-

lina psychiatrist who evaluated me after I had been

civilly committed and told me that my test results were

above the norm?

17. Why are the Courts not obeying the United States

Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution that

“Once a Not Guilty plea has been entered in a criminal

action that denies every essential element of the

offense(s) charged on arraignment, it obliges the govern-

ment to prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and

preserves my rights to defend myself in a Court of law.”

128 F. 2d 265, 273.

18. How did I get civilly committed into the mental

hospital as Guilty by reason of insanity without a special

form of verdict by a judge or jury or finding from a

psychiatrist?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

19. Where is the jurisdiction’s test as proof that I failed

it and where is the proof that I am guilty of any crimes?

20. Where is the proof that I may have had a temporary

insanity for the courts to use when a “paranoid delusio-

nal disorder, persecutory type” mental illness is incurable

and so are the mental illnesses that were written in South

Carolina?

21. Why is it not a NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF

INSANITY plea recorded on court documents instead of

my NOT GUILTY pleas?

22. Why did South Carolina give me a list of juror’s and

alternate’s names and the District of Columbia recorded a

jury trial date, if I had entered in Not Guilty by reason of

insanity pleas?

23. Why did I get charged with indictable offenses and

still not get my timely requested and guaranteed jury

trials when “under the Constitution, the federal govern-

ment MUST PROSECUTE ALL ‘infamous crimes’ such as

felonies by indictment” as charged to me with only the

method of prosecution changing?

24. If there was no indictment by a grand jury who

found no valid case existed, why has the government

already convicted and sentenced me as guilty by reason

of insanity and I was civilly committed as punishment in

South Carolina and fired from my job in the District of

Columbia as “unfit for duty?”

25. How did the government enter me into its insanity

plea bargaining when I had to have applied for it myself

Vi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

and it was no longer in force in the District of Columbia,

having been negated by the American Law Institute's

Model Penal Code test; and I had to have failed a jurisdic-

tion’s test and had a judge’s approval in South Carolina?

26. How could the government or I have used an insan-

ity defense with it being one of the COMMON LAW

PLEAS which have been abolished or made obsolete by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

27. How can the government circumvent my civil and

constitutional rights to receive my guaranteed jury trials

when I have not, and will not waive these fundamental

rights under any vicissitudes?

28. How can anyone deny what each wrote as proof of a

state concerted action in joint tortfeasors with malice and

malice aforethought shown in each parties’ conventional

writings, representations, expressed and implied which

the policy of the law will not permit them to deny?

29. How can the government believe it can force me to

surrender my civil and constitutional rights in its favor

and not receive my timely requested and guaranteed jury

trial based on a rule that is not in the Constitution for my

jury trials; and when the estoppel doctrine creates an

inhibition or an inability for the government to assert a

waiver in its favor? 106 F. 2d 687, 691.

30. How can the government believe it can deprive me

of due process and equal protection of the laws because

of the color of my skin?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

31. How can the government ignore the due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been used

as the vehicle for the application of most of the substan-

tive and procedural rights in the Bill of Rights to state

action?

32. How can the government deny it has violated most

of my civil and constitutional rights that are granted by

state or the federal Constitutions and protected from

governmental interference? 389 U.S. 258. See bill of

attainder; due process; equal protection; ex post facto;

search and seizure; void for vagueness and unconstitu-

tional.

33. How can the government deny its acts did not fol-

low the statutes in the Constitution from the beginning to

the present, which is the basic law to which ALL others

MUST CONFORM, 140 F. Supp. 925, 928; or that the

Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it cannot

be canceled by the authority of anyone, even in part, by

statute?

34. How can the government deny its acts were not in

violation of the federal and the state Constitution which

is the supreme law within South Carolina? 140 F. Supp.

925, 928.

35. How can the government deny that it used uncon-

stitutional means and gave me two false arrests, false

imprisonments, 219 F. 2d 622, 624, and a malpractice civil

commitment from malpractice reports written by profes-

sionals? 72 F. Supp. 394, 399; 236 N.Y.S. 641.

Vill

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

36. How can the government deny it is not a Party to my

malicious prosecutions that was initiated by the U. S.

Department of Justice and the United States of America

and has damaged my character and reputation; and is

also a Party to the criminal proceedings which instituted

illegal proceedings and conducted criminal proceedings

in a Kangaroo Court against me without probable cause,

393 U.S. 410, or justification, 342 F. Supp. 1048, 1063, with

malice and malice aforethought? 362 F. 2d 770, 774.

37. How can the government deny that it is still using

concerted acts that are malum prohibitum solely because

of the existence of statutes to prevent the public from

knowing the facts of the matter in my cases? See 262 F. 2d

245, 248.

38. How can the government deny that by allowing the

radio to air, the newspaper and West Publishing Com-

pany to publish and Blue Cross/Blue Shield to receive

and pay a fraudulent health bill in the District and in

South Carolina without an investigation or any evidence

is slander and libel when each party knew or should have

known they had written and released false statements in

reckless disregard to the falsity of them? See 362 F. 2d

188, 195.

39. How can the government deny that my cases are not

sufficient on their own, being supported by the govern-

ment’s and other’s own legal documents and conven-

tional writings as maximum evidence of their falsity and

being free from palpable defects which entitles me to

have my cases to go to jury trial? See 105 N.E. 2d 454, 458.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

40. How can the government claim its judgment is suffi-

cient to avoid the findings by a judge or jury to prove my

innocence; or that its motion to dismiss or dispense with

my cases is not unconstitutional when the evidence is in

my favor and requires no further support to establish

existence, validity, or credibility for my guaranteed jury

trials with the constitutional portion continuing to stand?

315 U.S. 568, 572.

41. How can the government deny that I was not civilly

committed by them without the required 72 hours obser-

vation period in a reguiar hospital and had no psychi-

atric/psychology evaluations given or a showing that |

RECEIVED OR FAILED A JURISDICTION’S TEST, but a

showing that I was released by Court Orders, the only

psychiatrist who evaluated me and the hospital staff who

observed me as NOT MENTALLY ILL with no conditions

and no treatments were given?

42. How can the government deny that the procedural

rules governing my substantive rights that I may main-

tain, and my petition for a redress of grievances by the

government have not been violated without the adminis-

trative process?

43. How can the government deny that the criminal

procedure by which the government imposed its author-

ity before my arrest to the present has not been found to

be unconstitutional by statutes governing police activ-

ities, court procedures, convictions, sentencing matters,

and court rules by the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-

cedure?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

44. Why is the government seeking to circumvent my

cases from jury trials if probable cause was established by

the U. S. Department of Justice and for my arrest warrant

and there was/is justification in every overt act by them?

45. Where is the statute that allows me to get twice

criminally-charged for “infamous crimes,” convicted and

forced to serve a sentence in a mental hospital without

evidence of the crimes charged, or of me having a mental

illness in my life, and the government can get dismissals

without a verdict from a jury to clear my name and

restore my reputation?

46. Who gave the government authority to create rea-

sons to get dismissals, which is an admission of its guilt;

and to write ex post facto laws that altered the laws and

inflicted the greatest punishment with my involuntary

emergency civil commitment without any evidence in

order to convict me as guilty but mentally ill, if the

receiving hospital had joined the state concerted action

and used malice and induced me with a mental illness

each wrote to get the false criminal charges dropped?

47. Who gave the government authority to abolish the

Constitution and use laws that violate Art. I, Sec. 9 (Cl. 3)

and 10 of the Constitution of the United States which

provides that neither Congress nor any state shall pass an

ex post facto law with these provisions being applicable

only to criminal statutes governing my criminal charges?

3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390.

xi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

48. Who gave the government authority to pass a bill of

attainder that inflicted me with being known and remem-

bered as a convicted released prisoner with a mental

illness without a fair hearing or a jurisdictional trial? 381

U.S. 437, 448. Such enactments are prohibited in the

United States Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3; and are in

disregard of the first principles of natural justice. 35 N.E.

951, 952.

49. Who gave the government authority to create bias

hate crimes toward me in such a way that impartially

cannot be achieved and a fair outcome cannot occur

without my jury trials?

50. Can the government and others say they did not

create bias hate crimes against me with the evidence of

the existing documents evidencing how each participated

in the state concerted action and gives me the fundamen-

tal rights to challenge everything in them without a dis-

cretionary writ of certiorari being filed, etc.?

51. Can the government and others say their documents

do not show evidence of ill will, hatred, and bias toward

me as an educated, older single, Black and Christian

female whom they felt they could intimidate, assault

physically and emotionally, harass and use criminal mis-

chief to my property and getting me fired as “unfit for

duty” with no income for the next ten months and Work-

man Compensation turned me down?

52. How can the federal Courts claim they have no

ancillary jurisdiction over my cases when it is assumed

by federal courts, largely as a matter of convenience to

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

me as the Party, which extends beyond that conferred

upon them expressly by the Constitution or by enabling

statutes regardless of the citizenship of the parties, the

amount in controversy, or any other factor that would

normally determine jurisdiction. Wright, Federal Courts

§ 9 (5th ed. 1994).

53. How can the Supreme Court of the United States

decide not to file my cases without my jury trials when it

is the only court created directly by the Constitution,

having final appellate review of lower federal courts, and

of state court’s decisions involving questions of federal

laws like mine?

54. How can the Supreme Court claim it can dispense

with my cases involving questions of federal law without

my guaranteed jury trials when the principal instances of

federal jurisdiction are cases like mine “arising under the

Constitution, and Laws of the United States,” and “to_

which the United States shall be a Party,” and those either

between two or more states, a state and the citizen of

another state or between the citizen of two different

states as diversity of citizenship, as Ms. Veronica Butler?

55. How can the Supreme Court claim it cannot hear my

cases wherein the meaning or application of many things

in the Constitution and laws of the United States are

being disputed by me under the existing statutes?

56. How can the Supreme Court claim that I did not use

the correct format to file in the Court when I used their

forms they gave to me and was impossible for me to

make it up on my own?

Xili

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

57. How can the lower federal courts claim they did not

have federal jurisdiction over my cases and sent them to

the Supreme Court when the federal district courts are

granted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear fed-

eral question cases like mine?

58. How could any court have requested or required me

to write the discretionary writ of certiorari that is not a

constitutional requirement for me to receive my guaran-

teed jury trials; and is in conflict with some provision in

the United States Constitution and the South Carolina

Constitution and is found to be unconstitutional with my

NOT GUILTY PLEAS, NO NEGOTIATIONS OR PRE-

TRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAMS AGREED to?

59. How did Mrs. Tapera, Dr. B. G. Pinkney, the Judge,

Officer Brantley, Ms. Butler, the Doctors, the District of

Columbia Public School System come up with so many

different dates for the same crime that never occurred;

and why did I get the letter on the C & P Telephone

stationery when they were no longer using it?

60. Why did the State’s Attorney in the District of

Columbia write the STATEMENT IN HER LETTER TO

ME AS” ...it is apparent that your case presents a most

”/

interesting and complex factual history . . . ” except she

knew of the concerted action to have me written up as

guilty by reason of insanity to get a dismissal for the false

arrest and false imprisonment without a fair hearing or

jury trial that was to follow me to South Carolina with the

involuntary civil commitment without being evaluated?

XiV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

61. Why does everything point to the government being

negligence, wanton negligence, negligence per se, and

culpable negligence for my safety and the rights of others

to know everything that has occurred for their safety and

security?

62. Why does every statute, rule, report, and document

and request show confliction with some provision of the

United States Constitution and the South Carolina Consti-

tution and makes them unconstitutional?

63. How can I be punished for not obeying any statute,

rule, request, time line, etc. with the United States

Supreme Court correcting and negating the lower Court's

judgments which makes everything to be found uncon-

stitutional; and is considered void or as if it had never

been, and consequently all rights, contracts, or duties that

depend on it to dispense with my cases without my

guaranteed jury trials are void?

64. How can any Court say that what has been done to

me was constitutional when it conflicts with our existing

Constitution and is repugnant to the United States Con-

stitution and the Constitution of South Carolina?

65. How can what the government has allowed and has

done to me be considered anything than unconstitutional,

when even if only part of a statute or rule may be

unconstitutional, and the invalid part can be severed, the

constitutional portion continues to stand for me to

receive my guaranteed jury trial by both the United States

Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution? 315

U.S. 568, 572.

XV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

66. Was the U. S. Department of Justice document, the

Mr. & Mrs. Nolan Williams letter, my transfer by Dr. B. G.

Pinkney from her building to the Carver building, the C

& P Telephone Company’s letter, Mrs. Gloria Tapera’s

memorandum, the other District of Columbia Public

School System’s letters, the Judge’s documents, the Police

documents, the State’s Attorney’s contract of fraud, the

malpractice mental state of mind reports, etc. with differ-

ent dates for the same “infamous crimes” used to cover

up a long chain of usurpation to protect governmental

negligence that had been going on for some time with

released prisoners with mental illness; and to prevent my

case from going to trial as evidence against them?

67. Why did Dr. B. G. Pinkney transfer me from her

building to the Carver building on the same day the U. S.

Department of Justice’s document is dated on February 1,

1993, except she was part of the state concerted action

who also wrote me up to take the fitness for duty exam-

ination without evidence of me having a mental problem

and had not seen or spoken to me since I was transferred?

68. Who actually wrote the U. S. Department of Justice

document with the illusion that an investigation was

started on February 1, 1993, and dated that I was found

“Making threats to do bodily harm” to Veronica Butler

between or about December 16, 1993?

69. Who wrote the December 16, 1993, Mr. & Mrs. Nolan

Williams letter that Mrs. Tapera did not mention and was

not clocked in by the School System until months after I

had been arrested and after the concerted action was in

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

place to give Ms. Butler a valid reason for coming to my

job with possibly a concealed weapon in her closed

attache case to do bodily harm to me and my co-workers?

70. Why does Mrs. Tapera’s memorandum conflict with

Officer Brantley’s report for December 16, 1993, and she

does not mention Ms. Butler’s letter; and why does the

police report say that I stalked Ms. Butler to the address

of the precinct and no one arrested me at the scene?

71. Was South Carolina solicited to complete a malicious

prosecution which was previously unsuccessful in the

District’s criminal proceedings on behalf of Ms. Butler of

diversity citizenship, SIA, etc., which the U. S. Depart-

ment of Justice and the United States.of America became

a party?

72. Was South Carolina solicited to bring about the

incurable mental illness each wrote that I had while I was

in the mental hospital and no one would have thought to

question if I had committed the charged “infamous

crimes” or if I were ever mentally ill?

73. Did anyone consider their actions were overt, mal-

practice, 72 F. Supp. 394, 399; 236 N.Y.S. 641, malum in se,

373 S.W. 2d 90, 93; and malum prohibitum, see 262, F. 2d

245, 248, and that no licensed psychiatrist or accredited

hospital would risk their reputation by participating in

anyone's. illegal concerted action and induced me with a

mental illness after reading “Drop (criminal charges

checked) upon receipt of treatment” and the ex parte

application by an unqualified Social Worker and I had

NOT been evaluated?

XVil

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

74. Who gave the government authority to invade my

“zones of privacy rights, as a tort for which remedies are

available, created by specific Constitutional guarantees

and impose limits upon governmental power?” 424 U.S.

693, 712.

75. What was the compelling state interest to lie that my

sister had a nervous breakdown, to intrude upon my

physical life and seclusion, to place me in a false light in

the public’s eye by associating me with beliefs and activ-

ities which I had no connection? Prosser & Keeton § 117

(5th ed. 1984).

76. How can any court dismiss my cases without a fair

hearing that MUST BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER

CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE

PROCESS, including the opportunity for me to present

evidence in my favor as well as to be apprised of the

evidence against me in the matter so that I am fully aware

of the basis for the judgment by everyone from the begin-

ning to the present? See 212 F. 275, 277.

77. How can my cases get dismissed without my timely

requested, promised on court document and guaranteed

jury trials by both the United States Constitution and the

South Carolina Constitution for a jury to find out if my

accusers: 1) were not sure of what was charged to me; 2)

had no evidence against me; 3) refused to show on court

date; 4) had been caught lying; 5) were in contempt based

on default; and 6) were found to be in miscarriage of

justice or were found to be in misconduct of office?

XVili

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

78. Does the government actually expect me to allow it

to withdraw my NOT GUILTY PLEAS, MY JURY

DEMANDS AND accept its GUILTY, JUDGMENT

GUILTY pleas in its favor when I know that I am innocent

without a mental illness?

79. Does the government believe that I am to accept its

insanity defenses from unqualified social workers and

psychiatrists who never evaluated nor had me evaluated

and cannot produce proof of me failing a jurisdiction’s

test and be remembered as a released prisoner with a

mental illness when it is not true?

80. Does the government expect me not to defend

myself in my Jury Demand Trials and allow it to leave me

with its guilty convictions when it did not come from a

verdict from a jury?

81. How can the government justify what it has done

and allowed to happen to me and still believe that I am

not entitled to use the United States Constitution and the

South Carolina Constitution to clear my name and restore

my impeccable reputation from its fraudulent charged

crimes?

82. Does the government expect for me to surrender my

identity to Veronica “Humes” Butler in exchange for

hers?

83. Why have I gotten two telephone calls from Toronto,

Canada (416) 361-6017 and (416) 361-1692 on February 2,

2001 except it appears to be where Ms. Butler was

ordered to return? Also from seven other major cities.

xix

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

84. Why did the courts write the “facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process

to dispense with oral argument” except the facts and

legal statements are in my favor and no one wants the

public to find it out?

85. Why did the courts write they “found no reversible

error in my cases” when the mistakes made are so obvi-

ously unconstitutional and also are obviously not imagin-

ary which will actually affect my legal rights and

obligations to defend myself if I do not challenge them in |

a court of law?

86. Why do they believe that I do not know that state-

ments of fraud, deceit, perjury, slander and malpractice,

if not corrected, will affect the way the public sees me

and will result in a miscarriage of justice which justifies

reversing the judgment in the Courts even if I did not

have the opportunity to object to before now? See 314 P.

2d 973, 976.

87. Do the courts believe that I do not know that a

miscarriage of justice is the damage to my rights to my

action to appeal to receive my jury trials that has resulted

from errors made by the lower court’s judgments without

my jury trials and that it is sufficiently essential to

require a reversal made by any court?

§8. Do the courts believe that I do not know that there

has been plain error (rule) used which requires an appel-

late court to reverse its conviction and sentence that I am

guilty by reason of insanity, in my absence without me

XX

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

taking or failing a jurisdiction's test, and award my first

and only jury trials guaranteed by both the United States

Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution? 635 P.

2d 1161, 1164.

89. Do the courts believe that I do not know that these

plain errors that were made were not objected to because

I have not had my requested, promised and guaranteed

jury trials to make my objections; and if uncorrected by a

trial court will affect my fundamental rights to my first

and only fair trials? 579 F. 2d 1170, 1199. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 52 (b).

90. On what merits are the courts claiming they find no

reversible errors after reviewing my hand delivered doc-

uments and tape; and on what facts did the district courts

reach their opinions to dispense with my cases without

my oral argument in my guaranteed jury trials?

91. What is it that the courts are agreeing to and chang-

ing in the magistrate judge’s recommendation that I have

not received or that is valid?

92. On what reasoning are the courts affirming with the

district courts’ judgments and from which district court is

it coming from that there are no reversible errors in my

cases?

93. Why does everyone believe they can deceive me into

believing what they wrote that I did to Ms. Butler and

Ms. Simpkins with their own written documents as proof

that it never occurred?

xxl

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

94. Why did everyone write me into an incurable mental

illness without any evaluations or records showing that I

failed a jurisdiction’s test and was released as NOT MEN-

TALLY ILL without any treatments from the mental hos-

pital?

95. Why do the courts believe their opinions/judgments

are sound and justifiable when no one can alter the

documents each party has written that shows proof of my

innocence and proof that I was never mentally ill?

96. Why do the courts believe that I have to surrender

my civil and constitutional rights and not receive my

guaranteed jury trials by the United States Constitution

and the South Carolina Constitution?

97. Why do the courts believe that my NOT GUILTY

PLEAS on arraignment does not oblige the government to

prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that it

does not preserve my rights to defend myself in an oral

argument with my peers being my judge and not a group

of people acting under color of law? 128 F. 2d 265, 273;

and 202 N.W. 144, 148.

98. Why do the courts believe they can dispense with

oral arguments when it is a part of the due process of law

procedures that expands with jurisprudential attitudes of

fundamental fairness, 302 U.S. 319; and the right to a fair

hearing prior to deprivation of any constitutional and

civil rights as well as my civil commitment? 237 U.S. 309.

99. Why do the courts believe due process of law is not

a delicate process of adjustments, inescapably involving

XX11

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

the exercise of judgment by those whom the Constitution

entrusted with the unfolding of the process and not by

any man acting under color of law? 341 U.S. 123, 162-163.

100. What legal rights can the courts use in denying my

constitutional rights to receive my guaranteed jury trial

to clear my name and restore my impeccable reputation

from the government's false criminal charges and mal-

practice civil commitment?

101. Where is the existing statute written into the Con-

stitution that allows anyone or a court to dispense with

my cases without my oral arguments being heard in my

fair hearing in a court of law by my peers?

102. How can the courts dispense with my oral argu-

ments when it is a provision of the United States Consti-

tution, and to do so is found to be unconstitutional,

leaving all rights, contracts, or duties that depend on it

void?

103. How can the courts find no reversible error with

everything that has been done to me conflicting with

some provision of the United States and State Constitu-

tions, with the separation of the invalid part, leaving the

constitutional portion continuing to stand? 315 U.S. 568,

572.

104. Do the courts expect me to lie about myself and

concur with them that I committed their “infamy and

infamous” charged crimes, and that I had/have an incur-

able mental illness when neither are true?

xxiii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

105. What is it that I am supposed to have imagined in

my mind that is/was not true for the M.D., social worker,

and psychiatrists to have written that I was suffering

from a “paranoid delusional disorder, persecutory type”

mental illness?

106. Are the courts not aware that the only way they

could have given me their insanity defense is that it came

from a special form of verdict from a judge or jury, that |

never had, or from a finding of facts that I failed a

jurisdiction’s test that I passed, when I took it, after my

civil commitment? See 446 S.W. 2d 243, 244.

107. Are the courts not aware that an acquittal from the

finding of a jury on the charges submitted to them in a

trial is the only way they can give me a judgment to

dispense with my cases with or without my oral argu-

ments?

108. Why do the courts believe I have to be submissive

to erroneous criminal charges and malpractice mental

reports to give the government power to keep its convic-

tion of labeling me as guilty by reason of insanity and

dispense with my oral arguments when it is my rights to

defend myself?

109. Do the courts know the insanity defense was no

longer in force in the District of Columbia and is one of

the COMMON LAW PLEAS that has been abolished or

made obsolete by the Federal rules of Civil Procedure?

Nee eee ee em ak

vF

XXi1V

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

110. How did I get committed into the mental hospital

without Court Orders, a special form of verdict from a

jury or a finding that I failed a jurisdiction’s test?

111. Can anyone say I had a temporary insanity when I

was written up as suffering from an incurable mental

illness?

112. Can anyone say I was mentally ill and was released

without any treatments as NOT MENTALLY ILL?

113. Why do the courts feel the issues in my cases do

not need to be heard by a jury as the Constitution guaran-

tees, rather than by the judgment coming from judges

whose interest is on the government's side?

114. Why does the government believe their gross and

negligence per se did not cause my cases and that it is all

right to give me its guilty by reason of insanity defenses

twice without evidence of me ever committing any crimes

or having a mental illness? Prosser & Keeton, Torts Ch. ~ ¥

6 (Sth ed., 1984; and see 278 S. W. 2d 446, 470; 31 F. 755,

756.

115. How could I have been acting aggressive, explo-

sive, impulsive, very unstable and was unable to care for

myself or my ill mother before my civil commitment and

was released as NOT MENTALLY ILL without any treat-

ments and no one wrote anything they saw me doing?

116. Where was their fixed delusion about my early

forced retirement from the Washington, D.C. School Sys-

tem when the enclosed letter is evidence that it did

happen?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

117. Why did the District of Columbia send its hired

Attorney for my arraignment instead of giving my one

phone call to me to hire my own except to fill in a

contract of fraud, deceit and perjury to get rid of the

“Felony Threats” charges of fraud, deceit and malprac-

tice?

118. Why did the U. S. Department of Justice criminally

charge me with making “Felony Threats” to do bodily

harm to Veronica Butler; and the United States of Amer-

ica forced me to answer to them if neither intended for

my peers to judge me after hearing my oral arguments?

119. Why did Judge Arthur L. Burnett, Sr. try to coerce

me into pleading guilty and perform 100 hours in com-

munity service as his pretrial option instead of following

the statutes in the United States Constitution for my jury

demand after my NOT GUILTY PLEA was entered and

recorded?

120. Who needs and goes around telling people they are

seeking “psychiatric care” because they were arrested?

121. Was the phrase “severe emotional distress” written

in order to say that I was seeking psychiatric care to fire

me as “unfit for duty” in the District and for my civil

commitment in South Carolina to dispense with my oral

arguments as guilty by reason of insanity?

122. Why was I placed on Medical Leave Without Pay

on September 15, 1994, after I had signed for my regular

retirement on September 12, 1994?

XXV1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

123. Is it not odd that I had no physical or mental

conditions that surfaced until after Veronica Butler came

to my job and after my false arrest and false imprison-

ment on January 31, 1994, from my job?

ieesabltacibtaidldbr Att

XXV11

LIST OF PARTIES

Petitioner is Lizzie Lou Simpson.

Respondents include: The United States of America;

The United States Department of Justice; Detectives Bar-

bara L. Brantley and Louis Smith; Detective James L.

Trainum; May L. Laen, Assistant United States Attorney

for the District of Columbia in the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia; Judge George Herbert Goodrich in

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; Ms. Ver-

onia Butler, AKA, SIA, an alien without America citizen-

ship using another person’s social security number, a

released prisoner with a mental illness living in halfway

houses, etc., and my accuser in Washington, D. C.; Arthur

L. Burnett, Sr., Associate Judge in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia; Mrs. Gloria F. Tapera, Acting

Director at the Carver Special Education Building of the

District of Columbia Public Schools; Assistant United

States Attorney, Michael J. T. — in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia; Mr. Park, receiving Officer at

the sixth district precinct with Detectives Brantley and

Smith; Assistant United States Attorney, E. N. Duants for

the District of Columbia, Judiciary Center, — Rogatory

Letter on April 18, 1994; The District of Columbia Pre-

Trial Services; Karen D. Alverez, Attorney for the District

of Columbia; Pamela Diaz, Hearing Commissioner in the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia; Elizabeth

Estrill, Clerk and B. Stevenson, Deputy Clerk in the Supe-

rior Court of the District of Columbia; Nolan Williams, Sr.

and Nolan Williams, Jr., Veronica Butler’s daughter, Offi-

cer Barksdale, A. E. Wingo, Z. Scott, Gregory and Nassar;

XXVIli

LIST OF PARTIES - Continued

Francine Williams and Gloria Tuff, secretaries in the

Carver Building of the District of Columbia Public School

System; Chief Judge Eugene N. Hamilton in the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division as proof

of my January 6, 1994 filed complaint; B. Garnett Pinkney,

Ed.D., Director of the LEA Special Education Branch and

Mr. Julio Castillo, Executive Assistant; Ms. Heaman and

Mrs. Mitchell, Annoying Call Center of the C & P Tele-

phone Company, then Bell Atlantic I have been informed;

Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Vice Superintendent of the District

of Columbia Public School System; Ms. Josephine Regis,

LICSW, Employee Assistance Program of the District of

Columbia Public School System; Attorneys Antoini M.

Jones and Richard Huber as my counsels in the District of

Columbia; Daniel Smith, Esq., Assistant United States

Attorneys’ Office in the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia Re: United States v. Lizzie Lou Simpson; Celia

Kramer, M.D., and Stephen W. Peterson, M.D., Psychiatry

Chairman at the Washington Hospital Center Internal

Medicine Division; Mr. James R. Daugherty, Director of

the Division of Human Resources of the District of

Columbia School System; Washington Hospital Center’s

Supervisor; Employee Requesting Copy from Employee

Assistance Pregram File; Ms. Joyce Dews, Mrs. Joyce

Armstrong, Mr. Michael Snipes; Mr. Donald L. Monroe;

Security Branch; Personnel Staffing Specialist, Mrs. Helen

F. Moss and Mrs. Linda H. Moody all of the District of

Columbia Public School System; Dr. Franklin L. Smith,

Superintendent of Schools, Chief State School Officer,

Ret.; Mr. Johnson, Department of Employment Services;

XX1X

LIST OF PARTIES - Continued

The Petrovitch Auto Body Repair Shop, Inc. at 2303 14th

Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20009; Maria Salacuse,

Investigator from the Office of The U. S. Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C. Field

Office; George N. Letsa, Ed.D., C.P.A. Controller for the

Division of Fiscal Services Finance Branch for the District

of Columbia Schools; Chief of Police, Fred Thomas, Ret.;

Mrs. Constance Clark, District of Columbia Public

Schools; Mrs. Pearl Allen, Ret. from the District of

Columbia Schools; Action Auto Rental, Inc., Suite 1500,

Claims; 6830 Cochran Road, Solon, Ohio 44139, January

15, 1994 letter; Mr. Michael Snipes, District of Columbia

Public School System; Officer Sherri Simpkins (Now in

federal prison.) and The City of Clinton, South Carolina

and the State of South Carolina; Officers Duane Johnson

and Arthur Turner of the Police Department in Clinton,

South Carolina; Attorney Donns S. Givens for Sherri

Simpkins and The City of Clinton; Attorney Millings A.

Blalock for The City of Clinton and The Police Depart-

ment; Ernest A. Finnely, Jr., Chief Justice, Ret.; State of

South Carolina and ex parte Denise Workman, MSW, v.

Lizzie Lou Simpson for the Civil Commitment; Judith

Tolhurst, M.D., Lizzie Lou Simpson Civil Commitment;

Robert M. Stanley, MSW, who wrote that I was mentally

ill and did not qualify for release; J. McElswee, M.D., who

supported my release but still wrote negative statements

trying to justify my admission; Jonathan Crisp, M.D.,

Psychiatrist, who supported my release and gave mean-

ing to the conspiracy by writing that I was forced from

my job in Washington, D. C. but did not justify my

LIST OF PARTIES - Continued

involuntary emergency admission because there were no

Court Orders; and he was the only one who did give me

my psychiatric/ psychology evaluation which he verbally

said was above the norm; Kaye W. Fridy, Judge of Probate

Court.

|

XxXl

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i ee coh csekencstneateven sees seceses 1

i ech b A606 Skt nena edeadesnbesseeness 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI-

ED 65 4.555.606 4b0s cds ceecesececees 2

EP GPU s bb ccsdccascevcccsccsssvcce 2

REASON FOR GRANTING THIS WRIT OF MAN-

ES ee eT eT eee TEEPE EEE eT EET Tree 14

EE heb as ce G Sus 6ébR bosereccncecescscese 20

XXXii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

STATUTES

BD Wa Oe ED 0 ok hon vaca sce dine cnanenen beynusnas 28

| Ek tae £ | POEPePrrrerrrrTT rT rT Torry reer rrr 5

, Bis Yom Bo . | ' i wwwrrrrrreeerrrry rrr errr rere s 2

tk ioe heey ror rrr re reer rrr Anaenaes 10

CONSTITUTIONS

a rr er re ry 7

Pe PN cc cdan sda se pak eeecckeneasacanee 7

Eighth Amendment ................2sssesseeeeees 11, 18

Prtne AMARONE yoo csc ca cccnccecunecenncens 17

South Carolina Constitution............... 9, 17, 27, 29

US. Comet Act. b, BOG. FG. Be cseadeccawersncasssunns 6

16 ae ae” Sr rr errr Terr 6

ie a ae OO ee ee ry rer Pee 8

RuLES AND REGULATIONS

ae Be A Ne eer rer rrrr rr ry Perr ry 14

aed, Be Cam Pe. Wann cn ce cksccccndidscecesusens 14

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Model Penal Code §§ 211.1 et seq................... 12

?

’

:

F

;

1

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner respectfully prays that this petition for

writ of mandamas is issued to review the judgment of the

lower court below.

OPINIONS BELOW

For cases from federal courts:

The opinions of the The United States Court of

appeals appear at Appendix A to this petition.

The opinions of The United States District Court

appears at Appendix B to this petition and is reported at

West Publishing Company; or, has been designated for

publication but is not yet reported.

JURISDICTION

For cases from federal courts.

The date on which the United States Court of

Appeals decided my case(s) was on August 1, 2001.

No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my

cases because I am still waiting for my first fair hearings

and my guaranteed jury trials by the Courts.

This petition for a writ of mandamus is to be filed in

the United States Supreme Court as an extraordinary writ

that goes “beyond the regular authority compelling per-

formance of a ministerial act which the law recognizes as

an absolute duty rather than discretionary.

An extension of time to file a petition for the courts’

requested discretionary writ of certiorari was denied after

writing that I could file for an extension of time as a pro

se petitioner; and after the Supreme Court of the United

States negated and made void the Court’s judgment to

deny the writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court is the only court created directly

by the Constitution to hear cases involving questions of

2

federal law “arising under the Constitution, and the Laws

of the United States,” those “to which the United States

shall be/is a Party, between two or more states and of

diversity of citizenship.” These are my two cases.

The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. 1651(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS PROVIDED

The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions

are reproduced in the appendix attached hereto at App.

23-33.

STATEMENT OF CASES

I am unhappy about the lower courts’ judgments

because they have failed to acknowledge that I have hand

delivered: 1) a tape of Veronica Butler’s voice threatening

me; 2) both the District of Columbia and South Carolina

police and malpractice medical reports as proof of my

false arrests, false imprisonments and malpractice mental

reports; 3) evidence of the initial perpetrators being the

U.S. Department of Justice, the Metropolitan District of

Columbia Police, the Judges and the District of Columbia

School Systems and the Psychiatrist at the Washington

Hospital Center; 4) documents that it was the United

States of America who carried me into court on behalf of

Veronica Butler; and 5) proof of how South Carolina

became a party to the state concerted action with malice

and malice aforethought in joint tortfeasors to complete

the District of Columbia’s unsuccessful criminal prosecu-

tion and to destroy my mind in accordance with their

scheme to “ruin my life” as in their Mr. & Mrs. Nolan

Williams’ December 16, 1993, letter clocked in much later

and gives the public the illusion that I am a released

prisoner with a mental illness in need of “some sort of

3

counseling to relieve my distress and is a very dangerous

person.”

The courts also failed to acknowledge proof that Ms.

Butler is a released prisoner with a mental illness who is/

was 1) living in a halfway house while under the guard-

ianship of the government and fulfilling the requirements

of a penal institution in its concern for security and

rehabilitation; 2) in a parole program known as RESI-

DENTIAL COMMUNITY TREATMENT CENTERS as a

condition of probation; 3) allowed to harass Mother and

myself by the government being negligent per se, etc. and

brought about a malicious prosecution in order to pre-

vent my January 6, 1994, filed complaint against Ms.

Butler and others listed; 4) allowed to come to my job on

government property, possibly carrying a concealed

weapon to carry out a job rage killing and threats that I

had ignored until my car was damaged, stolen and badly

damaged, phone wires were crossed from the outside

according to a telephone technician and home security

was shut down until repaired; 5) an alien without Ameri-

can citizenship and now my caller I.D. showing two calls

from Toronto, Canada, who is “bound up with the opera-

tion of the State as a governmental entity” as a police

officer and public school teacher; 6) allowed to use the

U.S. Department of Justice, the United States of America,

the School System and the Police to accomplish her Sedi-

tion Illegal Action and caused the disruption and over-

throw of the government by resisting and refusing to

cooperate with authority and laws in her anger with her

identity; 7) allowed to use sedition communication in her

letter and on the phones to the Logan and Carver build-

ing secretaries and Directors that brought about my

calamities; and 8) a known AKA and SIA person to the

courts using another person’s social security number

from a hired Private Investigator’s report.

+

In 1919, the Supreme Court held that sedition com-

munications could be punished consistent with the First

Amendment, if they presented a clear and present danger

of bringing about violence which I have undergone which

the government had a right to have prevented. See 249

U.S. 47, 52; also the state government of South Carolina

had the power to have prevented my second false arrest,

false imprisonment and unevaluated civil commitment.

See 254 U.S. 325. See Addendum to Appendix.

I am also unhappy that the courts want me to believe

that even though the States (D.C. & S.C.) cannot punish

sedition against the United States where Congress has

already acquired legislation in this area by “occupying

the field” with legislation of its own, that I am not still

entitled to my guaranteed jury trials. See 350 U.S. 497. See

treason. The crime of treason shows in the way Ms. Butler

used the government and government employees and

agencies who rendered her aid and comfort, 325 U.S. 1, 3,

as she committed violence toward me and used the

United States of America and the Courts to satisfy a

judgment against me that I am the same as she and is

guilty by reasons of insanity without a fair hearing under

due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is

unconstitutional. Congress has passed laws to affirma-

tively protect my constitutional and civil rights granted

by state and the federal constitutions and are protected

from governmental interferences. 389 U.S. 258. These

rights are found in the bill of Rights and are now applica-

ble to the states by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment,

391 U.S. 145. The Ninth Amendment gives me access to

rights not named in the Constitution but are “those so

basic and fundamental and so deeply rooted in our society

(right to clear my name and restore my impeccable repu-

tation from being remembered as a twice released pris-

oner with a mental illness) to be truly ‘essential rights,’

5

and which nevertheless, cannot find direct support else-

where in the Constitution.” 576 F.2d 165.

It appears that the rationale behind the courts’ judg-

ment is to also give the illusion that I am disqualified as a

witness and to prevent the public from ever knowing the

government is the initial perpetrator and to prevent those

involved from losing their jobs or positions in public

office. 18 U.S.C. § 2381. The government does not want

anyone to know it engaged in acts of violence against me

without probable cause or justification by hiring agencies

to write up an insanity defense for me that was no longer

in force in the District of Columbia; and South Carolina

only recognizes it if I had taken and failed the jurisdic-

tion’s test. All of this was unconstitutional and federal

and state crimes!

Under the discretionary Forum, I have the MAN-

DAMUS WRIT afforded by the law to pursue that is open

to me as a remedy to still receive my guaranteed judicial

trials. See enclosed petition for the Mandamus writ.

Other substantial facts the court failed to acknowl-

edge are: 1) my cases were filed as a joinder who share

joint liability to my criminal cases and were made civil by

the actors committing a civil wrong to stigmatize me as a

released prisoner with an incurable mental illness that

was unfounded by any psychiatrist or anyone else. It was

done in written contracts, legal documents, malpractice

reports and duties of persons who acted in negligence per

se, acts of tort, etc.; 2) both the United States Constitution

and‘the South Carolina Constitution are the supreme law of

the land and not man; and the judge’s in every state and

clerks shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitu-

tions guaranteeing my judicial trials once I entered my

NOT GUILTY pleas, was given a promised jury date and

jurors’ and alternates’ names; and anything in the Consti-

tution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstand-

ing; 3) are found to be in disobedience to the

6

Constitutions federal and state; 4) both Constitutions

guarantee my jury trials without the courts’ requested

discretionary writ of certiorari; 5) they had me to write

the writ more than once, stamped them as being filed and

then returned them as another form of punishment with-

out a jury trial or the Judges in the Supreme Court seeing

them to review as required by law; 6) they also wrote ex

post facto laws without Congress’ approval or a President

signing it into law that a writ of certiorari is a require-

ment for filing my cases or to receive my guaranteed jury

trials; and 7) passing a bill of attainder without Congress’

approval or a President signing it into law requiring me

to write or file a discretionary writ of certiorari before I

can receive my jury trials in a court of law that inflicted

punishment on me without judicial trials, 381 U.S. 437,

448. Such enactments are prohibited in the United States

Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3 and is in disregard of the

first principal of natural justice. 35 N.E. 951, 952. The ex

post facto law is also in violation of Art. I, Secs. 9 Cl. 3 &

10 of the Constitution of the United States which pro-

vides that neither Congress nor any state shall pass an ex

post facto law in order to convict me, as was done in both

criminal charges. 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390.

I am also unhappy about the courts’ judgment

because: 1) they do not accept that it was the U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice and the United States of America who

charged me with “infamous crimes” that are indictable

under the statutes and are now refusing to follow the

Criminal Law and Procedures in the United States Consti-

tution and the South Carolina Constitution to bring about

justice for me; 2) they knew who Veronica Butler is

because it was written on the court documents and I

received the rest from my Private Investigator’s report

and still want me to accept that I do not have a vested

and fundamental right to my jury trials to get a complete

acquittal in a public court; 3) once I entered in my Not

7

Guilty pleas, it obliges the government and the courts to

grant my guaranteed and automatic jury trials no matter

what ex post facto law is written or bill of attainder is

passed without the approval of Congress; 4) the courts

made a judgment based on prejudice leaning toward the

government and my accusers formed without due exam-

ination of the facts, no hearing, no due process, etc. but I

was convicted and sentenced with a forced servitude ex

parte involuntary emergency civil commitment without a

judge, jury trial or me being evaluated; 5) in respect to

my civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. It

regards man as man, and takes no account of his sur-

roundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaran-

teed by the supreme law of the land are involved; 6)

failed to acknowledge the makers of our Constitution

sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their

thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They con-

ferred, as against the Government, the right to be left

alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right

most valued by civilized men. To protect this right, every

unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon my right

to privacy, by the police and other listed parties, must be

deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the

use of it that tried, convicted and sentenced me into the

mental hospital without evidence in the criminal proceed-

ing, of unfounded, undiagnosed and unevaluated mental

health, by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of

the Fifth. Thus, making the governments’ practice uncon-

stitutional; 7) it appears that everything done to me was

just to get a file on me held by the FBI, or to be placed in

a computer data bank held by the CIA, one of the security

committees of the U.S. Congress, the Passport Office, the

Department of Justice, one of the intelligence branches of

the armed forces, or one of the many other federal, state,

and local police agencies to harass, humiliate, degrade,

belittle and prevent me from holding the position of a

8

public school teacher again, as my chosen career. This

would put me in the same position as Ms. Butler; 8) the

Court ruling that the government's practice of not obtain-

ing court approval for wire tapping individuals also must

hold true for not getting court approval for my civil

commitment must also be held to be unconstitutional;

and 9) the wire tapping of my home phone today is done

without justification or probable cause that I am a danger

to society or myself is also unconstitutional.

The Courts also: 1) failed to acknowledge the clerks

and judges in both the Supreme and inferior courts, shall

hold their offices during good behavior under Section I,

Article III. Thus, in order for the judges to perform their

jobs in office, the clerks are constitutionally bound to file

my cases to allow the Judges to review and hear them

and pass their judgment and not have the judgment

coming from the clerks; 2) failed to acknowledge that a

court clerk is only an officer and not a judge whose duty

is to keep records, issue process, enter judgment and the

like. They do not have authority to make/pass judgments

as they are trying to do; 3) are using clerks to try to

change Article III of the Constitution to benefit the gov-

ernment and the parties involved attempting to carry out

another state concerted action in which the United States

is a Party; to controversies between the District of Colum-

bia and South Carolina; between a State and citizens of

another State; between citizens of different States;

between citizens of the same State, etc., or the citizens

thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects; 4) using

clerks to write new laws by writing that Congress has

passed an Act under Article III of the Constitution setting

the time to file a petition in a civil matter for an out-of-

time petition gives the Supreme Court no authority to

review the matter when Congress in pursuant to Article

III of the Constitution does not address this matter with a

statutory deadline; 5) ignoring the estoppel doctrine is a

Rak yh ely: Sats tlie atelet vod cities

9

“bar which precludes a person (including Congress,

Judges, Attorneys and Clerks as persons) from denying

the truth of a fact which has, in contemplation of law,

become settled by the facts I have already presented to

the inferior Courts and proceedings of judicial or legisla-

tive officers, and by the acts of the parties themselves,

either by conventional writing, or by representations,

expressed or implied. This estoppel arises because each

party has done some act which the policy of the law will

not permit him to contradict or deny.” 51 S.E. 514, 521; 6)

are ignoring the estoppel is an equitable doctrine used

when good conscience requires it. The injuries to my

body, character and reputation have been presented and

well documented; 7) are ignoring that there is nil for the

Supreme Court to waive since I have not waived my civil

and constitutional rights and the Supreme Court is the

only Court created directly by the Constitution, having

final appellate review of lower federal courts, and of state

courts’ decisions involving questions of federal law as in

my cases; and 8) are ignoring that the estoppel creates an

inhibition or inability for the Supreme Court or any lower

court to assert they “may never voluntarily surrender or

relinquish my known civil and constitutional rights, ben-

efits, or advantages” that only I have over the govern-

ment by way of the United States Constitution and the

South Carolina Constitution. 106 F.2d 687, 691.

The courts are ignoring that after I timely requested

my guaranteed jury trials after the lower courts recorded

my Not Guilty pleas with a promised date for my jury

trial and a computer printout of my juror’s and alter-

nate’s names, no statute of limitation which outlaws state

claims can be imposed with a discretionary writ of cer-

tiorari requested by the courts. The Supreme Court and

lower court are: 1) ignoring that once my NOT GUILTY

PLEA was recorded on arraignment in the District of

Columbia and I made no negotiation plea with the State's

10

Attorney in her contract and I had no arraignment in

South Carolina, this was unconstitutional; 2) ignoring

that after I was released from the mental hospital by

Court Orders and was admitted without Court Orders, it

obliges the government to prove me guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt and preserves the right for me to

defend myself in a court of law! 128 F.2d 265, 273; 3) are

ignoring that I never entered in a NOT GUILTY BY

REASON OF INSANITY or GUILTY BUT MENTALLY

ILL plea to get a reduced sentence or a dismissal; 4) are

ignoring that if either of the above had occurred, there

had to have been a special form of verdict or finding by a

jury or a judge (which I did not have) showing that I

failed a jurisdiction’s test which is impossible because my

cases are based on the government and other agencies

acting under color of law, 202 N.W. 144, 148, that has

deprived me of my civil and constitutional rights, 42

U.S.C. § 1983, these constitutional rights are granted by

state and the federal constitution and are protected from

governmental interference! 389 U.S. 258; 5) are ignoring

that if I had taken and failed a jurisdiction’s test, it would

not give me an acquittal or a dismissal unless I had been

admitted and released as temporarily insane which no

court documents or a report from a psychiatrist show; 6)

are ignoring that if I had been suffering from the incur-

able “paranoid delusional disorder, prosecutory type,”

with the “aggressive, explosive and impulsive behaviors

and was very unstable and unable to care for my ill

mother or myself,” there would not be any way that I was

able to have cured myself to have been released by the

psychiatrist, hospital staff and Court Orders as NOT

MENTALLY ILL WITHOUT ANY TREATMENT.

The courts are ignoring: 1) the constitution speci-

fically forbids cruel and unusual punishment as I have

been forced to endure and still am suffering in order to

clear my name and restore my impeccable reputation; the

3

j

11

Eighth Amendment prohibits unusual punishment and

imposes limits on what can be made criminal and pun-

ished as such. 430 U.S. 651, 667; 2) the Eighth Amend-

ment prohibition applies to torturing me, by force, to live

with the mentally ill that went “beyond the limits of

civilized standards,” as known by civilized men. 356 U.S.

86, 100; 3) that I was forced to be where I did not wish to

be nor did I belong, and nor was I ever in need of “some

sort of counseling to relieve distress” or “in need of

treatment” for the District of Columbia and South Caro-

lina to “Drop (criminal charged, checked, aired, and pub-

lished) upon receipt of treatment;” 4) that the

governmental interferences thaf caused my calamities

without probable cause or justification is ground for

reversible error substantially affecting appellant’s legal

rights and obligations which, if uncorrected, will result in

a miscarriage of justice which justifies reversing the

Court’s judgment. This is because I have objected to the

lower courts not giving me due process and equal protec-

tion of laws as well as to dispense with my cases based

on non-constitutional discretionary writ of certiorari that

the courts requested me to write and rewrite. See 314 p.

973; 5) that a miscarriage of justice has been done to me

without my requested jury trials and makes for miscon-

duct in office by those seeking to prevent my cases from

going to trials while acting under color of the office with

the omission of a duty to me to clear my name and

restore my reputation; 6) except the lower and Supreme

Court are seriously doubtful that the Constitutions do not

guarantee my jury trials, and I would still be a guilty

released prisoner with a mental illness on the FBI’s and

CIA’s data bank, these errors of not giving me the jury

trials will require a reversal on the grounds that the

government has not and cannot produce any evidence

that I was ever guilty of any crimes or had a mental

illness in my lifetime; 7) the government has made cases

12

and has overtly denied me due process and equal protec-

tion of the laws in order to protect itself and the contrac-

ted agencies that has seriously prejudiced my essential

and preserved rights to defend the “infamous crimes”

brought against me from no acts from me. 632 F.2d 1279,

1280; 8) the relief I am seeking is for the irreparable

damages that were intended by the actors and the writer

of the December 16, 1993 letter to the District of Colum-

bia School System to be reversed in my guaranteed jury

trials by my peer with full compensation and not be any

judges in secret. It was an intended intrusion on my life

and rights to privacy as well as to constantly remind

society and myself that I am the same as Ms. Butler, etc., a

released prisoner with an incurable mental illness and to

keep me on the FBI’s and CIA’s list as having and being

capable of committing an “infamous crime” as a way of

life, which can only be cleared up in my guaranteed

judicial trials; 9) the actors knew to falsely charge me for

felonies, get them written as misdemeanors, which would

have still given me a sentence of a year for a simple

assault and a sentence of five years for the aggravated

assault; and a maximum sentence of ten years for the

charged felony by the U.S. Department of Justice, Model

Penal Code §§ 211.1 et seq., 6.06 and 6.08; if, I believe

Senator Strom Thurmond had not intervened; and 10)

after it was discovered the insanity defense was no longer

in force in the District of Columbia, Ms. Simpkins was

solicited to give me another criminal record and an insan-

ity defense. This was also without knowledge that the

only way this could have occurred was that I had to have

failed a jurisdiction’s test for insanity, ordered by a judge,

BEFORE being civilly committed. The insanity defense is

one of the COMMON LAW PLEAS which have been

abolished or made obsolete by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedures. Thus, the District of Columbia and South

Carolina’s given insanity defenses are unconstitutional!

13

I am also unhappy with the Court’s judgment

because they are ignoring: 1) that any statute that is

found unconstitutional and is in conflict with the United

States Constitution and is repugnant to the South Caro-

lina Constitution is considered to be void or as if it had

never been, and consequently all rights, contracts, or

duties that depend on it are void. Thus, I cannot be

punished for not filing the court’s requested discretion-

ary writ of certiorari on time in a booklet form; 2) the

court’s rights, contracts, or duties conflict with our writ-

ten Constitution that requires no writ of certiorari for my

guaranteed jury trials, 1 F.2d 1001, 1002; 498 P.2d 9, 14; 57

A.L.R. 3d 1058, 1065; 3) there is no statute provided in the

Constitution that provides for the courts to waive any-

thing that is not there or that is there that protects and

preserves my civil and constitutional rights; 4) if there

was a Pre-Trial Intervention Program that I entered into

as reported on the District’s documents, why was I not

assigned to a period of probation that avoided me from

the stigma of conviction as guilty but mentally ill and a

permanent criminal record of being a released prisoner

with a mental illness that followed me to South Carolina?;

5) I cannot get new trials because I have not had my first

judge or jury trials; 6) that to suppress the evidence after

the facts of the matter have been discovered is of fraud,

deceit, perjury, slander and libel with the government

being the initial perpetrators on behalf of Ms. Butler; 7)

using unconstitutional tactics to abridge my civil and

constitutional rights to my guarantee jury trials in order

to mislead the public into believing I have committed

“infamous felony crimes”; and had to be civilly commit-

ted to protect them without any evidence is slander and

libel; 8) the Constitution protects me as a minority and

not those in power who can protect themselves; 9) that

everything the government, agencies and accusers have

done to me is unconstitutional; and 10) I cannot get

en i ee ———————— .eeeee

14

charged for “indictable crimes” by the agency whose

duty was to have investigated the accusations made by

Ms. Butler, the Judge, and others BEFORE I was arrested

with an arrest warrant and carried into court by the

United States of America and not go to my requested jury

trial; nor can South Carolina allow my arrest to be for an

“infamous crime” and not carry me to my requested jury

trial without it being unconstitutional.

REASON FOR GRANTING THIS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This petition for writ of mandamus is being asserted

as an extraordinary writ that goes beyond the regular-

authority to be issued from one court to another, compel-

ling performance of a ministerial act not allowed for

personal choices or freedom of judgment. It is one the law

recognizes as an absolute duty, rather than discretionary.

I am asserting it because all other petitions and judicial

remedies have failed or were inadequate for filing my

cases for review by the Judges in the Supreme Court of

the United States. 9 F. Supp. 422, 423. It is an emergency

writ without a time line and cannot be ignored by anyone

with my cases being filed before the statute of limitation

ran out and as a joinder in the federal court in South

Carolina and in the Fourth Circuit Court. 74 P. 695, 501;

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18(a). See also id. at Rules 19-23.

This mandamus petition is based on obedience to the

mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exer-

cise of the judgment or the decision of another made

without using the statutes in the United States- Constitu-

tion and in the South Carolina Constitution. My cases are

embodied in constitutional statutes rather than directed

by judicial order as from a judge or a clerk.

_ These constitutional statutes are found in the United

States Constitution and in the South Carolina Constitu-

tion and are the basic law to which everybody must

4

i

5

15

conform. 140 F. Supp. 925. These statutes cannot be can-

celed or repealed by authority, even in part by statute.

140 F. Supp. 925, 928. The Constitution gives a perma-

nence and stability to the government and is not designed

to protect majorities, who can protect themselves, but to

preserve and protect my fundamental and vested rights

as a minority against the discretionary judgment and

actions of those in power. 208 U.S. 412, 420. Like the

federal Constitution, the South Carolina Constitution is

the supreme law and cannot be abrogated, even in part

by statute. 140 F. Supp. 925, 928.

With these ministerial acts (not allowed for personal

discretion/freedom of choice) being embodied in a con-

stitutional statute rather than directed by judicial order,

no judgment or requested discretionary writ of certiorari

can be used against me by authority. Also no acts can be

used having the appearance of authority but are actually

in violation of the law and conflict with some provision

in the United States Constitution can be used against me

without it being unconstitutional. See generally 1 F. 2d

1001, 1002; 498 P. 2d 9, 14; 57 A.L.R. 3d 1058, 1065.

A purely ministerial act . . . is one which a person

performs on a given state of facts, as I have already

presented to the lower courts and the Fourth Circuit

Court who is obliged to turn them over to the Supreme

Court, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the man-

date of legal authority. This is without regard to or the

exercise of another’s judgment or behavior used to carry

out the act being done. 139 N.W. 83, 88.

Any official or a public servant may be compelled to

perform acts embodied in a statute as ministerial acts

through a mandamus proceeding which is the basis for

this writ of mandamus.

Absolutely no one can: 1) produce any evidence

against me that will give them grounds for a federal

constitutional challenge to circumvent my judicial review

16

and my guaranteed jury trials; 2) maintain that I was/am

guilty by reason of insanity; 3) claim or justify that I had

a temporary insanity to get dismissals or to dispense with

my cases; 4) justify or verify that I entered any negotia-

tion plea bargains at any time; 5) claim that I did not

enter a “Not Guilty” plea on arraignment in the District

of Columbia with the court documents as proof and an

assigned jury date; 6) claim that my plea in South Caro-

lina was “Not Guilty” with a computer print out list of

juror’s and alternate’s names given to me; 7) claim they

have not grossly violated my civil rights by violating my

rights to privacy and by physically and emotionally

assaulting me; 8) claim that the police did not use force

and violence and removed me from caring for my ill

mother while I had her consent and her doctor’s orders to

be there and she had not asked me to leave; 9) claim that

the police did not force me out of the house in my house

robe with only my panties, bra and a camisole top on

under it to give the appearance that I was insane while

acting under color of law; 10) claim that the written

words, “Drop (criminally charged checked) upon receipt

of treatment” without a medical or a psychiatric/psycho-

logical evaluation or the 72 hours required observation

period in a regular hospital was not intended to have me

induced with a mental illness while in the hospital; and

10) claim that the intention was not to have used the

insanity defense for me from the beginning to get dis-

missals without realizing it was no longer in force in the

District of Columbia and had been abolished or made

obsolete as one of the COMMON LAW PLEAS.

Also my constitutional rights have been grossly vio-

lated by the refusal of the courts to give my timely

requested, promised and guaranteed jury trials; and by

them refusing to file my cases based on their requested

discretionary writ of certiorari claimed as out-of-time and

not being in the correct format for filing. No discretionary

——

A ee we

Bi eee Ae LN. has Wet dtd hee ola shbeirtins Madeee

17

writ is a requirement for my guaranteed jury trials by the

statutes in the United States Constitution nor in the South

Carolina Constitution.

It is the United States Constitution and the South

Carolina Constitution that give me the rights to my guar-

anteed and automatic jury trials. Once I entered in my

“Not Guilty” pleas, it obliges the government to prove

me “guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt and preserves my

constitutional rights to defend myself in a court of law.

128 F. 2d 265, 273; 287 F. 2d 435, 440-441.

The above is the Constitution and I did not write it.

The bill of Rights, where most of the federal constitu-

tional rights are found, support me that my rights were

grossly violated by the acts from the parties involved. It

is in their own conventional writings, expressed and

implied. The policy of the law will not permit them to

deny such acts. 51 S.E. 514, 521. The Bill of Rights are

now applicable to the states by reason of the Fourteenth

Amendment. 391 U.S. 145. Thus, it is unconstitutional for

anyone to deny, write and imply that my civil and consti-

tutional rights have not been violated with the evidence I

have presented to the lower courts showing by whom

and why.

Also the estoppel doctrine bars anyone from denying

the truth of the facts presented to the lower courts and

that the Supreme Court is refusing to file. It creates an

inhibition or an inability for anyone to assert a voluntary

waiver of my known rights, benefits, and advantage for

me to use the Constitution of the United States and the

South Carolina Constitution. 106 F. 2d 687, 691. It is my

known right to defend and preserve my character and

impeccable reputation from charged “infamous” crimes.

These charges resulted in my false arrests, false imprison-

ments, 219 F. 2d 622, 624; and malpractice mental health

reports that-led to my malpractice involuntary emergency

civil commitment without evidence. 72 F. Supp. 394, 399;

18

236 N.Y.S. 641. The evidence points to a state concerted

action in joint tortfeasors with malice aforethought that

brought about my malicious prosecution that slandered

my name and reputation, etc.

There is no statute in the Constitution that allows for

the Courts or clerks to assert a waiver to my civil and

constitutional rights that I have not done and will not

voluntarily surrender or relinquish myself. Nor is there

an Act of Congress that forces me to waive my known

rights when Congress is prohibited from passing ex post

facto laws and bills of attainders in order to stigmatize

me with a conviction and a sentence of “Guilty but Men-

tally Ill” as a punishment for impossible crimes commit-

ted by me. Until and unless I waive these known rights,

no one can deprive me of them. The Constitution speci-

fically forbids cruel and unusual punishment. United

States Constitution, Amendment VIII. This prohibition

has been held to apply to torture or other treatment, such

as I have received, that goes “beyond the limits of civi-

lized standards.” 356 U.S. 86, 100.

Being forced to serve time in the mental hospital in

South Carolina with no evidence of a mental illness after

being twice arrested, twice imprisoned for “indictable

infamous crimes;” and with an arrest warrant signed by a

Judge in the District and by the office accusing me of

committing the aggravated assault on her; and criminally

charged by the U.S. Department of Justice and carried

into Court by the United States of America without prob-

able cause being established. See 393 U.S. 410 and 287

U.S. 206, or justification, 342 F. Supp. 1048, 1062; and now

the denial of my guaranteed jury trials in attempts to

“ruin my life” is definitely “beyond the limits of civilized

standards.”

My cases did not occur through harmless errors

when no prosecutor has proven “beyond a reasonable

italiani ION I he Sn Sh RON hE Tt SIE sn ATARI LD 98 6 ot tie Se ematinh

19

doubt that errors by the government, agencies, psychia-

trists, etc. did not cause the verdict obtained” of “guilty

by reason of insanity” and was without my requested

jury trials. 386 U.S. 18, 24; and that constitutional viola-

tions did not contribute to the Kangaroo Court verdict.

395 U.S. 250.

This writ of mandamus requires that the laws in the

Constitution be followed and recognized as an absolute

duty that is not discretionary. Thus, my cases are based

on factual evidence for which my rights for relief to clear

my name and restore my reputation from these “infa-

mous crimes,” that inflicted harassment, 437 F. Supp. 201,

221, assaults on my body and character, intimidation,

hatred, cruel and unusual punishment and bias toward

me as an older Black female who is a Christian are also

not discretionary. See 271 U.S. 228. Nor are my rights to

prevail in defending my rights left up to the choice of

another. 112 F. 2d 886, 887.

Only if I had: 1) entered in pleas of “Guilty by reason

of insanity,” and applied for insanity defenses and a

Judge approved them; 2) received a verdict from a jury as

guilty or guilty but mentally ill in South Carolina; 3)

failed a jurisdiction’s test before or after my involuntary

emergency civil commitment; and 4) waived my rights to

receive my guaranteed jury trial can anyone abridge my

civil and constitutional rights. Everyone is bound by the

United States Constitution, even Congress and the Presi-

dent of the United States.

Not even the GREAT WRIT of habeas corpus can be

denied me to inquire into the legality of my confinement

in the mental hospital. 488 F. 2d 218, 221. The writ of

federal habeas pierces through the formality of a state

conviction to determine whether the conviction into the

mental hospital was consonant with due process of law.

261 U.S. 86. Also if it was a valid reason for my civil

commitment without evidence.

20

After thé federal court in Greenville, South Carolina

was mailed my cases from the federal court in Columbia,

South Carolina, they mailed it to the Fourth Circuit Court

in Richmond, Virginia. They requested me to verify who

had received them, including dates and postal slips

before they received them. They also requested me to

give them the documents that I hand delivered with my

check for filing. These documents included all the eviden-

tial documents from the District of Columbia and from

South Carolina. This included a tape of Ms. Veronica

Butler threatening me.

With the actors and parties using statutes that are

found to be unconstitutional, they are considered void or

as if they had never been, and consequently all rights,

contracts, or duties that depend on them are void. Also I

cannot be punished for having refused obedience to the

laws with them being found to be unconstitutional. Also

with the acts that were done to me conflicting with some

provision of the United States Constitution and are

repugnant to South Carolina’s Constitution, they are

found to bé unconstitutional.

In some instances, part of a statute may be uncon-

stitutional, and if the invalid part can be severed, as in

my cases, the constitutional portion continues to stand.

315 U.S. 568, 572. If the unconstitutional part cannot be

separated, the whole statute falls or loses its power. This

means that I am still to have my cases filed, reviewed

and heard by a jury in spite of everything else. This is

true because my cases involve violations of the Constitu-

tion and laws in the state of South Carolina which I am

disputing with the federal Court having federal jurisdic-

tion.

CONCLUSION

It appears that I received my false arrests, false

imprisonments, malpractice mental reports and an ex

21

parte involuntary emergency malpractice servitude civil

commitment as a punishment and as a cover up for

having exposed the government and employees for being

negligence per se, wanton negligence, negligence and

gross negligence. My calamities appeared while Ms. But-

ler and perhaps Mr. Nolan Williams, Sr. and Jr. were

living in halfway houses within my community, under

the guardianship of the government, as released pris-

oners with a mental illness and were allowed to commit

acts of criminal mischief toward Mother, others and

myself.

Documents from my hired Private Investigator and

from the Superior Court in the District of Columbia show

Ms. Butler as: 1) a released prisoner with a mental illness

living in different halfway houses under the guardianship

of the government; 2) being in a parole program known

as RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY TREATMENT CENTERS

as a condition of her probation for confinement and secu-

rity; 3) perhaps on a work-release program and perhaps

was found “unfit for duty” and “unable to care for her-

self” and was “very unstable” as was written for me; 4)

living in halfway houses to provide a “supervised and

restricted environment in which to ascertain her ability,

as a convict with a mental illness, to form a productive

life in society while simultaneously fulfilling the func-

tions of a penal institution in its concerns for security and

rehabilitation”; 5) an AKA person using another person’s

social security number; 6) an alien without American

citizenship; 7) an alien who is treated as a “suspect”

classification for purposes of equal protection analysis; 8)

perhaps being “bound up with the operation of the State

as a governmental entity” — policemen and a public

school teacher where states may exclude aliens; 9) a sedi-

tion illegal action person (SIA) tending to cause the dis-

ruption and overthrow the government by stirring up

resentment and refusing to cooperate with the authority

SET ee HS See ae ee pea

22

or the government in power to control her criminal and

mental behaviors; 10) a person who presented a clear and

present danger to society, Mother, my co-workers and

myself by making annoying, harassing and threatening

phone calls to Mother in South Carolina, and to me at

work and at home at all hours; 11) calling the Assistant

Superintendent in Special Education, according to her,

stalked me around the City, Maryland and Virginia, to

church, stores and came to my home cursing and threat-

ening me and on my job making threats and left a threat-

ening message on my answering machine; and 12)

threatening me if I reported her to the police again after

my purse was snatched, tires flattened on the same rim in

the same day, at work and at home, and badly damaged

my car when it was stolen with property damage to my

home also.

It appears she most likely had a concealed weapon

inside her attaché case on December 16, 1993, to do grave

bodily harm to me and my co-workers, according to Mrs.

Gloria Tapera’s memo to me on December 17, 1993, that is

dated for December 16, 1993. The federal and state gov-

ernment had a right to have prevented her behaviors,

especially after I reported her and Mr. Nolan Williams,

Sr.’s behaviors to the police. It appears she levies prop-

erty for the government, according to her, in order to

satisfy a judgment against her which accounts for the

assistance she received from them. It appears that she did

this out of fear of being returned to prison or the mental

hospital while “embraced with mental anguish, loss of

social position, without American citizenship as an

unemployed person, no permanent address, an AKA, and

a sedition illegal action person, etc.” Her fears were not

of what I would do to her/them, but of what would

happened to her/them if she did not carry out orders

given to her by others who were able to “ruin her life” in

this country. It appears that she had been programmed to

aE

23

| alt baat die line aK ay aaa

believe that I was a threat to her if she could not deliver

: my property to them, etc. In order to satisfy the judgment

against her, she used the U.S. Department of Justice, the

police, the District of Columbia Public School System,

who used other agencies to protect the government. This

was governmental interference without authority to sat-

isfy Ms. Butler’s fears of failure in life and her guilt of

failing them as an alien without American citizenship,

etc. These documents of fraud, deceit, perjury, slander,

malpractice and libel were to have covered all the bases

and satisfied her remaining in this country as an alien

without American citizenship who committed seditious

illegal actions. It was so planned that I was to have ended

: up with her true identity and perhaps a permanent resi-

dent in the mental hospital if I had not had God’s guid-

ance to refuse all treatment intended to have induced me

with their written incurable mental illness while in the

mental hospital. This axiom would have caused people to

have believed that maybe I had committed the charged

“infamous crimes” by the U.S. Department of Justice, the

Judge, Ms. Butler, Officers Brantley and Simpkins, and

had used the insanity defense.

LECOMPTE AD ENTE

Thus, to protect the government and others, a con-

certed action in joint tortfeasors was started with malice

and malice aforethought with every listed party. Includ-

ing the United States of America carrying me into Court

on behalf of Ms. Butler. Each acted under color of state

laws. This was to accomplish what someone later wrote

in the dated December 16, 1993, letter to Mrs. Gloria

Tapera. This came about by getting the DCPSS to cooper-

ate by giving the appearance that I was suffering from

“severe emotional distress” as a result of being arrested

from my job in handcuffs and needed a fitness for duty

examination before returning to work. Their solicited

M.D. and Psychiatrist were instructed to write me into an

incurable mental illness to give me an “unfit for duty”

Ore

24

report. It was used for my forced early retirement, no

income for the next ten months, and as if I were a dan-

gerous person who had been convicted and had a mental

illness with a criminal record.

If Ms. Butler and her adult daughter had come to

bring this letter to Mrs. Tapera, why is it not mentioned

in Mrs. Tapera’s memo to me and why did they pass by

two precincts just to bring this letter while expressing so

much fear of me and stating that I needed “some sort of

counseling to relieve my distress?”

Why is there a document of fraud, deceit, perjury,

slander, libel and malpractice by the U.S. Department of

Justice, the School System, the M.D., the Psychiatrist and

the police with the United States of America carrying me

into Court on behalf of Ms. Butler except as a cover up?

Why is there a Court document showing my plea of Not

Guilty Withdrawn, my Jury Demand Withdrawn and

given a plea of Guilty Judgment entered on February 18,

1994, after my “Not Guilty” plea and my Jury Demand on

February 1, 1994, at my arraignment in the District with-

out my knowledge or consent except as a government

cover up?

It appears that I was chosen to give Ms. Butler a new

identity as an older Black Christian, a public school

teacher with character, an impeccable reputation without

a prison record or a mental illness; and a born American

citizen who had not committed any seditious illegal

actions, etc. This accounts for my stolen: 1) birth certifi-

cate; 2) father’s death certificate; 3) Delta Sigma Theta

Sorority pin; 4) college program as evidence that I gradu-

ated Cum Laude; and 5) college Alumni Book with

names, addresses, etc. of others she could later use as

AKA when it was necessary. This plan would have

enabled Ms. Butler to have started a new life in America

as a citizen with a teacher’s or a policewoman’s position,

or as a retired teacher getting my retirement on 60 hours

ee

WERE A EAs RAW EAR ah Dita NW AG BBO SIF le

eS

> —_— =.

25

above my Master’s Degree, my insurance benefits, life

policy, and properties, with many high honors with no

prison or mental illness records.

The District of Columbia, South Carolina and the

Courts are trying to suppress the evidence by writing ex

post facto laws and passing a bill of attainder that are

prohibited by Congress. They also tried to abridge my

guaranteed jury trials be requesting me to write their

discretionary certiorari writ; and claimed it as out of time

filed even though it is NOT a requirement for me to

receive my demanded on arraignment and promised on

court documents jury trials. This was intended to stigma-

tize me as if I had committed “infamous crimes,” had

agreed to the Court’s withdrawn Not Guilty pleas with a

consent of being “guilty” as the Court’s judgment shows

to relieve the government and employees from slander

and libel and malpractice reports that is without any

evaluations. They want it to appear that I accepted the

Court’s judgment of “guilty” pleas without knowing that

it cannot be done in the District of Columbia or in South

Carolina unless I had failed a jurisdiction’s test in South

Carolina and that the laws had changed in the District to

allow insanity pleas to be in force again. Failing the

jurisdiction’s test had to have come before their write ups

and before my civil commitment in South Carolina. This

did not occur. I passed the jurisdiction’s test above the

NORM, according to the only Psychiatrist who tested me

even though he tried to agree with the others that I was

with paranoid delusions about my “forced early retire-

ment from the School System.”

Neither of the two designated examiners for Novem-

ber 6, 1995, wrote that I had a need for treatment before

or after my admission. Even though the third said exam-

iner wrote that I had the incurable paranoid delusional

disorder with a behavior associated with mental illness,

none wrote that I was treated. Thus, how was it that Dr.

26

Crisp wrote his recommendation as he did, with the

treatment team’s approval that I be discharged without

treatment as “NOT MENTALLY ILL?”

Where is the logic for: 1) my ex parte involuntary

emergency admission by an unqualified social worker; 2)

releasing me if I refused treatment and I still had the

incurable mental illness?; 3) everyone writing me with

the incurable mental illness before I was evaluated in the

District and in South Carolina?; 4) leaving me in jail

overnight with weapons in my house robe with only my

panties, a bra and a camisole top on under it?; 5) trans-

porting me to the mental hospital the next day instead of

that evening for the 72 hours observation watch in a

regular hospital?; and 6) ordering me to stay in the men-

tal hospital from November 3, 1995, until November 17,

1995, for a full hearing into my mental condition with it

dated on November 6, 1995, and I still have not had a full

or a fair hearing?

It appears that everyone’s logic was based on the

United States Constitution, the South Carolina Constitu-

tion and the Criminal Laws and Procedures being abol-

ished or made obsolete. Every document shows a

concerted action under-color of state laws in joint

tortfeasors with malice and malice aforethought to cover

for the government.

Thus, the Court’s requested writ of certiorari is in

conflict with some provision of both the United States

Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution because

it is not a requirement for my guaranteed, requested and

promised jury trials. Once I entered in my “NOT

GUILTY” pleas on arraignment, it obliges the government

to honor it. If not, this statute of denying my guaranteed

_jury trials is found to be unconstitutional. When a statute

statute is found to be unconstitutional, it is considered

void or as if it had never been, and consequently all

rights, contracts, or duties that depends on it are void.

athe Maeda ts Ja

keine inbephe saab 4 Ashen By dreints +

i eee Re ee

27

Similarly, I cannot be punished for not filing the Court's

requested discretionary writ of certiorari as out of time or

not in the correct format. With this request being an

invalid part that can be severed from the United States

Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution, the

constitutional portion continues to stand for me to

receive my demanded, promised and guaranteed jury

trials. 315 U.S. 568, 572. This is true in spite of everyone

acting “under color of state law” and state action under

the Civil Rights Act. 365 U.S. 167; 564 F.2d 849, 855.

The United States Constitution and the South Caro-

lina Constitution have made it possible that not even an

Act of Congress can abridge my civil and constitutional

rights to petition for a redress of grievances by the gov-

ernment; or to petition for this mandamus writ which the

law recognizes as an absolute duty to perform. In that it

is used only when all other judicial remedies have failed

or are inadequate, as it appears in my two cases, this

emergency writ must be issued from the United States

Supreme Court to an official compelling performance of a

ministerial act involving: 1) no judgment or discretion or

writ of certiorari; and 2) those that are quasi (almost)

judicial on a given state of facts in obedience to the

mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exer-

cise of a person’s own judgment of discretion. 139 N.W.

83, 88.

Absolutely no one can abridge my privileges to

receive my timely requested, promised and guaranteed

jury trial to clear my name and restore my impeccable

reputation from these charged “infamous crimes” by the

government. This is especially true once I entered in my

“NOT GUILTY” PLEAS on arraignment that I denied

every essential element of the offenses charged. 287 F.2d

435, 440-441. My “NOT GUILTY” PLEAS on arraignment

obliges the government to prove me guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt and preserves my right to defend the

28

government's and other’s charges. 128 F.2d 265, 273. No

Court has authority to even attempt to use a requested

discretionary writ of certiorari to replace the Constitu-

tion, federal or state, or to claim that there is an Act by

Congress, under Article III of the Constitution that

abridges my guaranteed civil and constitutional rights.

My Civil Rights are my given rights, defined, and

circumscribed (written) by positive statutes enacted by

civilized communities. 252 N. E. 2d 463, 474. These are

federal acts passed to amend statutes to provide stronger

protection for my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

When these amended statutes are not obeyed, they are

found to be unconstitutional and considered as if they

never have been. Thus, the government and the Courts

have opened the doors to fines or money damages, to me,

imposed by a regulatory scheme to deprive me of my

essential and constitutional rights. See e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 45

(1). They have also opened the doors to a civil remedy to

redress wrongs to my body by Officer Simpkins, to my

character and reputation and for compensation for inju-

ries suffered by all of them.

My Constitutional Rights are my individual liberties

granted by state or the federal Constitution, protected

from governmental interference and cannot be abridged

under any vicissitudes. 389 U.S. 258. Most of the federal

constitutional rights are found in the Bill of Rights and

are now applicable to the states by reason of the Four-

teenth Amendment. 391 U.S. 145. See unconstitutional.

The inferior Courts and now the United States

Supreme Court is attempting to use unconstitutional stat-

utes to circumvent my cases from being filed for review

by the nine Judges whose duties are to review them. It

appears that no Court wants it known that my claims are

valid and cannot be abrogated, even in part. These total

and operative facts that I have already given to the

Fourth Circuit Court must be turned over to the

> are

er 258 a

inatiai oe

in MAD iti RO RAN ln HY Daas Lede eK

29

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT for review and

gives to it a right enforceable in the Courts. 309 F.Supp.

1178, 1181. This right is NOT NEGOTIABLE. It is a

statute written into the United States Constitution and in

the South Carolina Constitution that CANNOT BE

ABOLISHED, RELINQUISHED, ALTERED, OR MADE

OBSOLETE not even is part by an Act of Congress.

Until I consent for the Courts to: 1) Withdraw my

“Not Guilty Pleas”; 2) Withdraw my Demand for my

guaranteed Jury Trials; and 3) give me their Guilty, Judg-

ment Guilty sentence by reason of insanity, or otherwise,

the government’s secret written negotiation scheme are

unconstitutional and leaves the constitutional portion

continuing to stand. The Courts opened the doors for my

jury trials by accepting and writing my “Not Guilty

Pleas” on court documents with promised jury dates and

juror’s and alternate’s names. Thus, I get to walk through

the doors based on the statutes that are in the federal

Constitution, and South Carolina’s Constitution automat-

ically guarantees it with my “Not Guilty plea.”

It appears that the government, nor the Courts want

a jury or a Judge in the Supreme Court to hear or review

my cases because of Veronica “Humes” Butler’s true

identified identity as an alien without American citizen-

ship, a seditious, illegal action person, etc. It appears that

she could be a terrorist from Toronto, Canada (calls on

my caller ID) who commits acts of violence by force and

with threats to do bodily harm to me and to our govern-

ment if I reported her to the authority again. It appears

that these threats were to corrupt our government by

using the U.S. Department of Justice, the United States of

America, the police department, the school system, the

Judges, the Assistant United States Attorneys and other

agencies to go against the policy of the laws and is

causing much confusion and conflicts with some provi-

sion in both the United States Constitution and the South

a a ae EET we aE

Nee

30

Carolina Constitution. It appears it was to prevent being

deported and forced to serve the remaining time of her

sentence as a released prisoner with a mental illness in an

institution for convicted crimes, etc. The scheme was for

me to have taken her place and no one would have

suspected that she was still out committing “infamous

crimes” against innocent Americans with citizenship, and

against our government.

Respectfully submitted,

Lizzie Lou Simpson, pro se

Counsel of Record

16 Sunset Boulevard

Clinton, South Carolina 29325

Telephone: (864) 833-6370

App. 1

JUDGMENT

FILED: September 27, 2000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the .

Fourth Circuit

NO. 00-1584

CA-99-3356-6-13AK

LIZZIE LOU SIMPSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OFFICER SHERRI SIMPKINS, CLINTON POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CLINTON

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of South Carolina at Greenville

| In accordance with the written opinion of this Court

filed this day, the Court affirms the judgment of the

District Court.

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

CLERK

edie Cel eye en Ener nae

App. 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS" -

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT-

No. 00-1584

LIZZIE LOU SIMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OFFICER SHERRI SIMPKINS; CLINTON POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CLINTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Ander-

son, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3356-6-13AK)

Submitted: September 21, 2000

Decided: September 27, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lizzie Lou Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this

circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Mi ERTS ea NRO RAIN BEN

App. 3

STATE OF SOUTH JUDGMENT IN A

CAROLINA COUNTY CIVIL CASE

OF LAURENS

PROBATE COURT CASE NO. MHC-2379

DENISE WORKMAN VS LIZZIE L. SIMPSON

Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s)

[ ] Jury Verdict. This action came before the court for a

trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the

verdict rendered.

[X] Decision by court.

[ ] Action Dismissed. [ ] Rule 12(b), SCRCP

{ ] Rule 40(c)(G),

SCRCP [ ] Rule 41(a), SCRCP (Vol. Nonsuit)

[ ] Settled [ ] Other, Explain:

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED; [X] See attached

order [ ] Statement of Judgment by Court

Dated at Laurens, South Carolina, this 13TH day of

NOVEMBER, 1995.

/s/ Kaye W. Fudy

Judge

This judgment was entered on the 10TH day of NOVEM-

BER, 1995, and a copy mailed first class this 13TH day of

NOVEMBER, 1995, to attorneys of record or to parties

(when appearing pro se) as follows:

App. 4

DENISE WORKMAN LIZZIE L. SIMPSON

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) | Attorney(s) for Defendant(s)

/s/ Sheri J. [Illegible]

Clerk of Court

App. 5

SYNOPSIS OF CASE

District of Columbia and South Carolina

Author:

Author:

Author:

Author:

Lizzie Lou Simpson v. Thirteen government

employees, with their names. It was filed and is

stamped on January 6, 1994, in the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia. Also

stamped as Received Hand Delivered on April

26, 2001, Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court,

U.S. Title: Civil Action No. 94-CA00199.

Supreme Court of the United States. Title: Liz-

zie Lou Simpson, pro se Petitioner vs. Sherri

Simpkins, The City of Clinton, The Police

Department, The District of Columbia School

System and the District of Columbia Police

Department. Stamped Received Hand Deliv-

ered on January 23, 2001, Office of the Clerk,

Supreme Court, U.S.

U. S. Department of Justice. United States

Attorney’s Office. District of Columbia. Supe-

rior Court of the District of Columbia. Criminal

Division. Title: Lizzy L. Simpson, 466-299, 1515

Penn. Ave., S. E. WDC. 030-038. Between or

About December 10, 1993 and December 15,

1993, made THREATS to do bodily harm to

Veronica Butler, etc. Signed by Assistant United

States Attorney for the District of Columbia,

May M’Laen and Officer Brantley #D-219, on

February 1, 1993.

United States of America v. Lizzie Simpson.

Title: Misdemeanor Pretrial Conference Record,

that I did not have. Charges: Threats — Bodily

Harm to Veronica Butler, November 10 -

December 15, 1993. Plea Offer: Defendant

Declined Pretrial Diversion Option signed

Judge Arthur L. Burnett, Sr.

—_—

App. 6

Author: Veronica Butler. Title: Complaint on January 15,

1993. I stalked her by following to Officer

Brantley’s precinct with no force entry. Listed

her home address as 2405 Ala. Ave., S. E. and a

student with no business or school address.

Author: Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Criminal Division Complaint. Title: Arrest War-

rant. On or About the 16th day of December,

Lizzy Simpson of 1515 Penn. Ave. S. E., WDC

did threaten one Veronica Butler within the

District of Columbia to injure the person of

another or physically damage the property of

any person or of another person, in whole or in

part. Signed on January 24, 1994, by Judge

George H. Goodrich and Officer Barbara L.

Brantley for Felony Threats On or About

12/16/93 for my return on 1/31/94.

Author: Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Criminal Division. Title: Affidavit in Support of

An Arrest Warrant for Lizzy Simpson, 1515

Pennsylvania Ave., S. E. Business address is

Carver School — 45th & Lee Streets, S. E., Wash-

ington, D.C. Complainant is Veronica Butler.

Location of offense is Officer Brantley’s pre-

cinct at 100 42nd Street, N. E., Washington, D.C.

on 12/16/93. Signed by Officer Barbara L. -

Brantley, Judge George H. Goodrich and Assis-

tant United States Attorney Michael J. T-__ on

1/24/94 to the warrant clerk for my arrest.

Author: Attorney Karen D. Alverez. Title: Contract for

Employment of fraud and deceit for my

arraignment on February 1, 1994. (Was written

in after I had signed for my arraignment.) Pur-

pose: 1) Negotiate dismissal of charge with

office of U. S. Attorney on 2/1/94; 2) Negotiate

papering of charge as misdemeanor if dismissal

App. 7

cannot be obtained; and 3) Representation at

presentment only on Feb. 1, 1994 for $500 that

no one paid to her.

Author: District of Columbia Pretrial Services. Title:

United States v. Lizzy Lou Simpson. Re: 1)

Charge - THREATS; 2) current address, length

of residence, person’s living with me, place of

employment, length of time, type of work,

years as a D. C. resident, educational back-

ground, marital status and other family in area

not living with me is marked UNVERIFIED; 3)

health history is that I had a physical problem

as unknown for time with a private doctor and

takes RX for nerves; and 4) that I was a self-

reported substance abuser from 10-11-90 but

reported no current drug use from 2-01-94 and

i no other information available. None of this is

true. This was to give me their insanity defense

with my job initiating it to clear everybody

with a dismissal and leave me without a job,

home, finances, etc. with an infamy reputation

each knowingly knew was false.

Author: District of Columbia Pretrial Services. Title:

February 18, 1994. Order N SIA (sedition ille-

gal action) Veronica Butler, 2405 Alabama Ave-

nue, S. E., Washington, D. C. and I believe the

word alien is written on this document by the

court.

Author: District of Columbia Pretrial Service. Title: Pre-

trial Services Recommendations. 1) defendant

be released on personal recc znizance; 2) report

to the Pretrial Services Agency for drug evalua-

tion and possible program placement; 3) report

to the Pre-trial Services Agency within 24

hours, give a satisfactory and verified address

at which to mail notification can be received;

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 8

-and 4) ordered to avoid all contact with pros-

ecution witnesses. This was to appear that I

had a drug problem that caused me to have the

behaviors they wrote for my arrest and I

needed to go into treatment and they would

dismiss their false charges. Only NO one gave

me any court documents for me to know what

their concerted action was for me as a punish-

ment for filing my true evidence with com-

plaint against them on January 6, 1994.

The Superior Court, the Judges, Officer

Brantley, the Assistant United States Attorneys,

and Veronica Butler. Each used different dates

for the same offense and the same offenses that

I had filed against the thirteen government

employees known for their involvement before

January 6, 1994. Also that the Pretrial Services

agency wrote me into a physical problem to

concur with the District’s Attorney’s fraudulent

arraignment contract to get a dismissal after I

had entered in my NOT GUILTY PLEA on

2/1/94.

United States Attorney, District of Columbia on

2/1/94. Title: United States v. Lizzy L. Sim-

pson. “No offer is being made. See AUSA

assigned for an offer. Signed by another Assis-

tant United States Attorney. It also has 4/15 -

Rogatory Letter at the top.

Criminal Division in the District or Columbia,

filed 2/1/94. Title: PLEA: NOT GUILTY. This

document disposed and closed the Felony

Threats and retained Threats, which is still a

Felony Charge that they wrote as a misde-

meanor to get a dismissal without my knowl-

edge, consent or my demand for a jury trial.

Continued on 2/18/94.

Author:

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 9

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Title: Notices to Return to Court on March 11,

1994, dated on 1/18/94; April 11, 1994, dated

on 3/11/94; and September 6, 1994, dated on

April 11, 1994.

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Criminal Information System Case Summary

on 6/28/94. Title: United States vs. Lizzy L.

Simpson. Count A - Charge: U830 Threat -

Injure A Person; Count B — Charge: U055

Threats Bodily Harm. Count B - 09-06-94 Jury

Trial.

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Criminal Information System Count Details on

6/28/94. Title: United States vs. Lizzy L. Simp-

son. Charge: U055 - Threats Bodily Harm

which is the same Felony Charge by the U. S.

Department of Justice on February 1, 1993,

Between or About December 10, 1993, and

December 15, 1993. (This Felony Threat charge

cannot be abrogated by the court trying to

make the law void for my demand for, prom-

ised and guaranteed Jury Trial. My NOT

GUILTY PLEA is recorded and is still in effect

even though the continued date recorded has

past on 09/06/94).

Superior Court of the District of Columbia on

2/18/94. Title; Defendant appeared with coun-

sel. Case continued for status on 3/11/94. Trial

4/14/94. It also has “PLEA OF NOT GUILTY

WITHDRAWN; JURY DEMAND WITH-

DRAWN; PLEA GUILTY, JUDGMENT GUILTY.

(If this had actually come from me on 2/18/94,

as dated, why are all the documents after this

date recorded for continued dates to appear in

Court and why does 06/28/94 document show

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 10

a Jury Trial date for 09/06/94? A GUILTY

JUDGMENT by any judge was NOT a dismissal

and it had to have come from having been

found by a jury that I actually committed the

crime charged. In my criminal case(s), it would

have been a judicial finding of guilt as a verdict

of “guilty.” It required that there was evidence

that I had committed the crimes charged

whether on Count A or Count B, 397 U.S. 358.

The verdict had to have come from the finding

from my jury trial and not from a Judge whom

I did not relinquish my Jury Trial Demand in

favor of a dismissal. Any other way was uncon-

stitutional with a false verdict and conflicts

with some provisions in the United States Con-

stitution).

Action Auto Rental, Inc. with no signature and

my name misspelled Lizzy, the same as on the

U.S. Department of Justice and the United

States of America documents. Title: Vehicle

Damage. Claim #F64196 266. Date of Loss

12/09/93. Damage Amount: $342.60. (Was this

the insurance fraud Veronica Butler threatened

to have me arrested on; and is this letter

another link to Ms. Butler’s sedition illegal

actions and criminal mischief behaviors)?

Their Mr. & Mrs. Nolan Williams’ (Sr.) Decem-

ber 16, 1993 letter. Title: Harassing, Annoying

and Threatening Calls with the appearance that

I had made them to them. Clocked in by the

School System on 5-4-94. Enclosed.

Mrs. Gloria F. Tapera, Acting Director’s mem-

orandum to me. Title: Incident Report for

December 16, 1993. Hand delivered to me on

the morning of December 17, 1993. She

addressed a conference with me after a police

pe ee

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 11

investigation by Detectives Brantley and Smith

on the morning of December 17, 1993, but the

letter is dated on December 16, 1993. Enclosed.

C&P Telephone letter dated on February 2,

1994 with CERTIFIED MAIL —- P383453934

typed on it. Title: Annoyance Call Center as the

sender. Enclosed. (This appears to be another

give away to their concerted action te frame

and label me with the infamy charged: crimes

with a mental illness.

Attorney Karen D. Alvarez’s letter dated Febru-

ary 3, 1994 with mentions of ‘under separate

cover police documents’ that I never received

but retrieved them on my own. Title/RE:

United States v. Simpson. ” . . . it is apparent

that your case presents a most intere sting and

complex factual history... . ” Enclosed.

Kenneth R. Milner, Vice Superintendent of the

District of Columbia Public School System.

Title: Administrative Leave effective Tuesday,

February 22, 1994, until further notice, Your

present state of severe emotional distress and

anger seemingly results as a reaction from your

arrest at Carver Special Education Center on

December 17, 1993. (It was on January 31, 1994,

and suggests the concerted action was that I

was to have been arrested the day after Ms.

Butler came to me on my job and explains why

she yelled, “Bitch, I’m gonna have your ass

locked up tonight! Bitch!”) He continued with,

you stated that you are under the care of a

psychiatrist due to the stressful nature of these

personal circumstances. . . . a Fitness for Duty

statement from your physician is required

before you can return to duty. (He and I never

Author:

Author:

App. 12

met nor had any conversations or correspon-

dences for him to have written this except it

was to make sure that I was written up as

“unfit for duty as planned.” ‘

Dr. B. Garnett Pinkney, DCPSS employee. Title:

Transfer of me from her building (Logan) to the

Carver Building under Mrs. Tapera, effective on

February 1, 1993, the same day the U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice wrote its document of fraud,

deceit and perjury. Is there a connection

because she is also the one who wrote that: 1) I

was arrested at the Carver Center on January

31, 1994, resulting from a complaint of harass-

ment filed by Mrs. Nolan Williams, a private

citizen; 2) A Ms. Hemans had indicated that

transcripts could be released to the DCPS if Ms.

Williams signed a release of information form;

4) I was referred to the Employee Assistance

Program on February 25, 1994. She wrote “The

severe emotional distress Ms. Simpson has

exhibited after her arrest at the Carver Special

Education Center has resulted in her being

placed on Administrative Leave and that I had

indicated the personal problems had resulted in

seeking psychiatric counseling.” (This is in the

Mr. & Mrs. Nolan Williams’ December 16, 1993

letter and was also without seeing or talking

with me. Clocked in on 4-28-94. She is also the

one to tell me that if Ms. Butler was the same

woman who used to call her that I was going to

be all right, as if she knew her. This was long

after I was placed on Administrative Leave.

James R. Daugherty, Director of the Division of

Human Resources. Title: A request from Dr. B.

App. 13

Garnett Pinkney, Director of the Special Educa-

tion Branch, Logan Building, to conduct a fit-

ness for duty examination to determine your

| capability to continue performing the duties of

a Teacher, at the Washington Hospital Center

on May 13, 1994. Failure to report may result in

; termination of Employment. (No one had told

him that I was not performing duties as a

Teacher but as a Program Specialist.)

Author: Celia Krama, M. D., Internal Medicine. Title:

Clinical Note: Lizzie Simpson. Assessment: 1)

Paranoid Ideation - her feeling that her

employer is trying to get rid of her and in

regards to phone calls and a relationship with

the couple mentioned in your report. Plan:

Referral to Dr. Stephen Peterson for evaluation

of possible paranoid ideation. Dated May 13,

1994. Status post hysterectomy and left ovariec-

tomy. No other hospitalizations. (Does this

sound like I was in denial of being hospitalized

as was written and do any of these people

understand the word paranoid delusions and

the other mental behaviors each wrote that I

had cannot be cured even with medication; and

that the symptoms can only be controlled?

Author: Stephen W. Peterson, M.D., Department of Psy-

chiatry. Title: Psychiatric Assessment in part.

Fitness for Duty Examination. “Apparently, she

was arrested at Carver Special Education Cen-

ter on December 12, 1993.” (Another wrong

’ date.) “Her sister had a nervous breakdown.”

She has NOT! “Denied being hospitalized

before, etc.” ... “I believe she suffers from a

paranoid delusional disorder, persecutory type.

She has much trouble relating to others due to ‘

this illness and due to her lack of insight, her

App. 14

prognosis is not good. I do not believe she is fit

for duty. I believe she needs psychiatric care

but I do not believe she will be compliant.”

Dated May 23, 1994. (Did someone switch my

name with Ms. Butler’s and this was the begin-

ning of their plans to give her my identity and I

was to become her? If not, where did they get

all of this erroneous information without any

evidence of me being evaluated by this psychi-

atrist?

Author: Celia A. Kramer, M. D., to Mr. Donald L. Mon-

roe, DCPSS Personnel Services. Title: Re: Lizzie

Simpson. She wrote, “I was very concerned

with the patient’s interpretation of the circum-

stances of her referral outlined in your commu-

nication as well as in regard to her relationship

with a couple in the community.” (This is proof

that they were given instructions on what to

write and ‘in the community’ goes back to the

Private Investigator’s report for one of the

addresses for Nolan Williams.) The patient was

evaluated by Dr. Stephen W. Peterson on May

23, 1994. If true, why was there not my evalua-

tion test results attached or a recommendation

instead of “I believe. . . . ” Anyone can write

what he did without an evaluation, as he did!

Author: James R. Daugherty, Director of Human

Resources. July 14, 1994. Title: Physician's

report from the Washington Hospital center,

Internal Medicine and Psychiatric Division.

They indicated they do not believe that you are

fit for duty and that you need psychiatric care

but do not believe you will be complaint. “Iam

requesting that you make an appointment with

Ms. Joyce Dews of this division to make

arrangements for your immediate voluntary

a

ee ee

SS anaemia

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 15

disability retirement or regular retirement,—in

that “you are age 55.” “ . . . to avoid making it

necessary for the school system to effect an

involuntary disability retirement.” (Does this

imply that I had a fixed paranoid delusion

about my forced retirement or that I was para-

noid about my employer trying to “get rid of

id

me,” as was written?)

Office of the Superintendent, August 10, 1994.

Title: a welcome back to school 1994-95 letter.

Re: “I cannot stress enough that you are critical

to the success of our mission, etc.”

James R. Daugherty, Director of Human

Resources. September 7, 1994. Title: Certified

letter unclaimed by me. Re: A notice of an

unclaimed certified letter on July 7, 1994, and is

being sent by security. (There was no letter

inside this notice. It appears this was done in

order to make it appear that they had tried to

give me warnings of some kind but it was not

received because ofan unverified address or

that I would not sign for it. They knew that I

came home every summer and that I had gotten

permission to leave the City for my own safety

until the jury trial date for September 6, 1994.

Lizzie Lou Simpson. Title: As requested by the

school system, I signed for regular retirement

on September 12, 1994. Ms. Dews informed me

they could not process me out until December

31, 1994. I accepted because of the many dan-

gerous things that I was encountering and my

neighbor was pointing out to me without me

telling her anything. It was moved to May 1,

1995, and forced me to buy five years and

Author:

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 16

wrote they were giving me “special permis-

sion” to retire when they had already forced me

to retire on 9/12/94, or face “reverse action.”

James R. Daugherty, September 15, 1994. Re: “7

regret to inform you that effective September 1,

1994, you were placed on “Medical Leave With-

out pay until December 31, 1994.”

Department of Employment Services on

November 11, 1994. Re: “Due to a health condi-

tion, you are not physically able to work.

Therefore, you are determined to be ineligible

for benefits until such time as you are physi-

cally able to work.” (It appears this was to force

me to lose everything that I owned, including

my home and to become homeless, living in

halfway houses under the guardianship of the

government which would have made it very

easy for them to have induced me with a men-

tal illness of a paranoid delusional disorder,

persecutory type behavior. This would have

solidified that I needed psychiatric care and

given them a valid reason for writing every

document without probable cause or justifica-

tion.)

Office of Pay & Retirement Services. February

10, 1995. Re: “Our payroll records indicate you

are still an active employee of the D.C. Public

School System and we have not received a

retirement application on your behalf, from

your personnel office.”

James R. Daugherty. Division of Human

Resources. February 24, 1995. Re: Letter of

Options: 1) Pay $6,854.00 to become eligible for

an annual annuity; 2) Apply for disability

retirement and receive approximately 48% of

your highest three years of salaries; and 3) Be

ri ot A a0 SY CB RelA a Bathe eal lh sires oo

rsdn pit Ms ovat nn re

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 17

separated as “unfit for duty” and withdraw

your accumulated contribution. (Is this a para-

noid delusion)?

James R. Daugherty. March 24, 1995. Re:

“Please be advised that special permission has

been approved for you to retire as early as May

1, 1995, if you desire. Further, you would also

be awarded a retirement bonus.”

James R. Daugherty. Division of Human

Resources. May 5, 1995. Re: “It is my pleasure

to extend to you congratulations on your Easy

Out Retirement as a Classroom Teacher with

the D. C. Public Schools. I thank you for your

commitment and contributions, etc. Please

accept my best wishes for happy and produc-

tive retirement years.” (I did not ask for an

Easy Out Retirement bonus. Furthermore, I had

signed for regular retirement as requested by

them as early as September 12, 1994. They

decided to punish me by delaying my retire-

ment and not send in my retirement papers for

processing).

The Government of the District of Columbia.

Title: Personnel Action. Public Schools of the

District of Columbia. It has my classification for

retirement as “Physical Handicap — 06” as if I

signed for a physical or a mental handicap Easy

Out Retirement to try to clear themselves from

being libel with slander to my character and

reputation. (This and the other documents

explain my second false arrest, false imprison-

ment and evil malpractice civil commitment in

South Carolina as a cover up for the D. C.

concerted actions with malice aforethought in

joint tortfeasors with each other.).

App. 18

Author: Mrs. Gloria F. Tapera. RE: My June 14, 1993 job

rating before the second semester ratings and

before my false arrest, false imprisonment from

my job on January 31, 1994; and before they

wrote their malpractice mental state of mind

reports about me. 1 = Outstanding; 2 = Very

Good; 3 = Satisfactory; 4 = Condition; and 5 =

Unsatisfactory. She checked all “2’s” for me

with the COMMENTS - Strengths: “The

appraisee has completed all proposed Place-

ment Notices in a timely fashion and has writ-

ten them with necessary documentation and

information for them to be appropriate. (This is

verification that I was a Writer of Programs for

students with special needs in grades from

K-12 and not a Classroom Teacher; and that I

was not given the same subjects nor programs

to write as repetitive for a lack of being able to

transfer basic learned skill to new situations,

etc., as is written in the Social History, it

appears, by Dr. B. Garnett Pinkney.

APPENDIX FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

Author: Officer Sherri Simpkins, The City of Clinton

and the Police Department. Title: Incident

Report. Case #9501107. Aggravated Assault on

Simpkins by clawing with my fingernails.

Author: Officer Sherri Simpkins. Title: Simpkins; Police

Report. Date: November 2, 1995. Dispatcher

Date: November 2, 1995. Time: 16:40. Arrived:

16:42. Offense Date: 11/02/95. Offense Time:

16:40 at 413 South Bell Street, Clinton, S. C.

Arrest Time: 16:50. Departed: 16:55 from 16

Sunset Blvd., Clinton, S. C. This is approxi-

mately four miles from 413 South Bell Street

App. 19

including red lights and stop signs. The offense

i time is two minutes before the police arrived.

Author: Officer Simpkins, City of Clinton and Police

Department. Title: Narrative in part. Simpkins

received a tetanus shot for injuries from my

fingernails at the emergency room. Police

reports say she had no visible injuries from her

] _ scratches. There was no family violence, no

i previous family violence, no child present and

no court order to remove me from my ill

mother’s home. There was no investigation or

approving officer for arresting and criminally

charging me on 11/02/95. Simpkins and Turner

arrested me.

ve. Sine BA eH RRO Suh tad a a4 Lo ta SS 2 Be

satel Age BE 1 02 TEN RAMEN Der eat 8 BN,

Author: Simpkins, City of Clinton and Police Depart-

ment. Title: Concerted action with the District

of Columbia. Both arrested me without proba-

ble cause or justification. Both solicited an

agency to just write me into a paranoid delusio-

nal disorder and a very unstable person who

| needed psychiatric care but refused treatment

without having me observed for the required 72

hours in a regular hospital, no psychiatric/psy-

chological evaluations before their writings.

Both wrote that I paid a bond and no one did.

Both charged me with “infamouse crimes” and

gave me an insanity defense except South Caro-

lina went further and had me civilly committed

without me taking or failing a jurisdiction’s test

and was without me seeing a judge for arraign-

ment or a phone call.

Author: Johnson, Simpkins and Turner. Title: State of

South Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket in Clin-

ton, S. C. for Lizzie Lou Simpson. Bail depos-

ited — Jail. Time of violation: 16:50 on 11/02/95

Author:

Author:

Author:

Author:

App. 20

from 413 South Bell Street, Clinton, S. C. A

different offense time.

Johnson, Simpkins and Turner. Title: You Are

Summoned to Appear Before the Trial Officer

on 11/07/95 at 2:00 P.M., Clinton, S. C. Viola-

tion: Simple Assault from the original Aggra-

vated Assault with Court Appearance circled

“NO.” This was the same as the District did in

order to give me their insanity defense by solic-

iting the Mental Health Clinic’s M.D., and

Social Worker to write me up as being insane,

thereby incompetent to stand trial. Ticket

enclosed & the news clipping.

The Clinton Chronicle Newspaper. Title: Clin-

ton woman charged with assaulting officer.

Notice they used descriptive words to give me

the same behavior as Ms. Butler by writing that

I refused to obey authority and resisted.

Enclosed.

Denise S. Workman, MSW at the Mental Health

Clinic. Title: Application for Involuntary Emer-

gency Hospitalization for Mental Illness by the

State of South Carolina in Laurens County on

November 3, 1995.

Judith Tolhurst, M.D. and Denise S. Workman,

MSW. Title: Application for Involuntary Emer-

gency Ex Parte Hospitalization for Mental IIl-

ness. Each tried to match and agree with the D.

C. arrest and mental illness statements without

any evidence to justify their written words by

writing that I was: 1) aggressive, explosive,

impulsive, “makes threats and commits acts of

violence” — Attacked a police officer yesterday,

confused - refusing treatment; 2) harmful to

self and incapable of caring for self and ill

mother; 3) paranoid and delusional and very

a OED FE ODT FEE Ee

Author:

Author:

App. 21

unstable; 4) with irritability, agitation -

removed from her mother’s home by police and

spent the night in jail; 5) without insight about

being dressed in house rot ‘police would not

allow me to change into stre_t clothes); 6) pro-

jecting my problems onto others; 7) forced from

my long term teaching job last year; and 8)

paranoia, tangential and currently writing my

autobiography as to say Blacks cannot write

books and I had an imagination that was not

realistic.

Robert M. Stanley, MSW. Title: Report of Desig-

nated Examiner for Mental Illness. Time: 4:30

P.M. 11/09/95. 1) IS MENTALLY ILL; 2)

NEEDS TREATMENT AND BECAUSE OF THIS

MENTAL ILLNESS - INVOLUNTARY HOSPI-

TALIZATION IS RECOMMENDED... . until

her hearing on 11-17 is indicated. Stamped as

received on November 13, 1995, in Probate

Court.

J. McElwee, M.D. Title: Report of Designated

Examiner for Mental illness. Time: 10:30 A.M.

11-10-95. 1) IS NOT MENTALLY ILL to such an

extent that involuntary treatment is presently

required. He wrote I: 1) was with paranoid

delusional but did not mention what it was

about; 2) denied suicidal or homicidal ideations

as if he saw me trying to harm myself or others;

3) refused treatment (that I had not been evalu-

ated, diagnosed nor was I seen acting in the

manner each wrote); and 4) clearly she has a

mental illness but did not feel imposing invol-

untary treatment was indicated and it was

likely to decrease chances of seeking voluntary

treatment in the future. Stamped received in

Probate Court on 11-13-95.

Author:

Author:

App. 22

Jonathan Crisp, M.D., on November 10, 1995 at

8:00 A.M. Title: Report of Designated Examiner

for Mental Illness. 1) IS NOT MENTALLY ILL

to such an extent that involuntary treatment is

presently required; 2) Ms. Simpson has a fixed

paranoid delusion pertaining to her forced

retirement from the Washington, D.C. School

System; 3) the delusion is fairly well circum-

scribed and is not leading to any interference

with her ability to cope with her own

affairs... . ; 4) psychological testing does NOT

indicate extension of her paranoia into other

interpersonal relationships. There is no charac-

ter logic flaw that is problematic; and 5)

“Because Ms. Simpson is NOT a threat to her-

self or others AND is refusing treatment, it is

both my recommendation and also that of the

treatment team that she be discharged.” (When

did anyone with a paranoid delusional disor-

der, making threats to do bodily harm and

destroy property of another, attacked a police

officer, refuse to obey and resisted authority get

released from a mental hospital as NOT MEN-

TALLY ILL without any treatments?) Received

in Probate Court on 11/13/95.

State of South Carolina. County of Laurens. Ex

Parte by Denise S. Workman. Title: In the Mat-

ter of Lizzie L. Simpson In The Probate Court

on 11-06-95. The above named Applicant filed

an application for Emergency Admission alleg-

ing the above-named person is mentally ill and

is likely to cause serious harm... , if not

immediately hospitalized. As a result, she was

admitted to Self Memorial Hospital (Mental

Unit) on the 3rd of November, 1995. Dated on

chis 3rd day of November, 1995, by Ann Barnes,

Author:

Author:

App. 23

signature of Mental Health Representative, Self

Memorial Hospital.

Kaye W. Fridy, Judge of Probate Court. Title: In

The Probate Court. Ex Pa ~ by Denise Work-

man, applicant in the mai.er of Lizzie L. Sim-

pson. “It is so ordered: That she be retained at

Self Memorial Hospital (Mental Unit) until the

17th day of November, 1995, at 9:30 A.M., at

which time she will be brought before this

court so the full hearing into her mental condi-

tion can be held.” Dated November 6, 1995,

Laurens County. (If any of this was true, what

happened that I still have not received my ‘full

hearing’ and where are the psychiatric/psycho-

logical evaluation test results as proof that a

judge ordered me for evaluation and that I

failed it)?

IN THE PROBATE COURT. Title: ORDER FOR

RELEASE BASED ON NO PROBABLE CAUSE

FOR EMERGENCY ADMISSION. This section

is left blank and no signature for my release.

However, I was released on November 10, 1995,

without any treatments or recommendations

except to get a prescription filled for hyperten-

sion. This was a culmination of what I had been

forced to live through in the District of Colum-

bia and in the mental hospital without probable

cause or justification and from being arrested

again in South Carolina and wondering who

was taking care of my ill mother. It was also

from interviewing the patients and finding out

that they were there for forgery, attempted sui-

cide, homicide, overdosing on pills, chemical

imbalance, and fear of going outside, and hal-

lucinating that they saw little green men with

big heads who told them to do things like to

Author:

Author:

App. 24

kill people and made them believe people were

making threats upon their lives; and calling

them on the phone to get them to keep moving

from place to place, etc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. No. 00-1584. UNPUBLISHED. Title:

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-3356-6-13AK). Submitted September 21,

2000. Decided September 27, 2000. Before

WILKINS, NIEMEYER, AND TRAXLER, Cir-

cuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur-

iam opinion. Lizzie Lou Simpson, Appellant,

Pro se. Unpublished opinions are not binding

precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. September 27, 2000. Title: Filing time.

1) In all civil cases in which the United States or

an agency or officer thereof is a party, the time

within which a party may seek rehearing shall

be 45 days after entry of judgment. (None of

my petitions were for a rehearing because I

have yet to receive my first fair/ full hearings in

order for a rehearing to be seeked by me. Thus,

this response is unconstitutional.); 2) The Court

may grant an extension of time or leave to file a

petition for rehearing out of time if the party

... ora party proceeding without counsel. I did

file for an extension out of time for my

demanded, promised and guaranteed jury trials

and not as a civil case or habeas corpus. I was

already released from the mental hospital as

NOT MENTALLY ILL with my only psychi-

atric/psychological evaluations being ABOVE

THE NORM. The civil action was made by the

Author:

App. 25

United States, agencies and officers who

became parties by their own conventional writ-

ings; and 3) Prisoners petitions are deemed

filed when delivered to prison authorities did

not apply to me.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. September 27, 2000. Title: PER CUR-

IAM JUDGMENT. “lizzie Lou Simpson appeals

the district court’s order denying relief on her

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) com-

plaint.” (This relief means my Petition for a

Redress of Grievances by the Government to

obey the federal laws and the Constitutions to

grant my demanded, promised and guaranteed

jury trials as my NOT GUILTY PLEAS on

arraignment obliges the government to prove

my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and pre-

serves my rights to defend myself in guaran-

teed jury trials in the District and in South

Carolina). 128 F.2d 265, 273. “We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting and modifying the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and find no reversible error.”

(If true, why did they not enclose his recom-

mendation that was modified)? “Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

See Simpson V. Simpkins, No CA-99-3356-6-13AK

(D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2000). (Why did I not get a copy

of this reasoning and affirmation?) “We dis-

pense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument

would not aid in the decisional process.” (They

really mean the evidence is in my favor and is

against the government. If I accept this judg-

ment, I will be concurring with those in power

and against myself as a minority that I was

Author:

App. 26

guilty of the government's infamy and infa-

mous charged “Felony Threats to do bodily

harm to Veronica “Humes” Butler and to Offi-

cer Simpkins’ aggravated assault charges as

well as being guilty by reason of insanity.”

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. November 17, 2000. Title: Re: 00-1584

Simpson v. Simpkins CA-99-3356-6-13AK.

NOTICE OF RECEIVED DOCUMENTS from

me. 1) “Motion for an extension of time”; 2)

“Motion for a full panel bill of review for the

above case.”; 3) “Motion for_my requested,

promised, and guaranteed jury trials by both

the United States Constitution and the South

Carolina Constitution because I never waived

my constitutional rights not to be tried by a

jury”; 4) “Information from a private investiga-

tor... .”; and 5) Copies of unpublished per

curiam opinion entered on 9/27/00 in this

(these) case, along with copy of Notice of Judg-

ment of same date and photocopy of two U.S.

Postal Service return receipt cards. “This Court

. shall not receive motions or other papers

requesting further relief in a case after the

Court has denied a petition for rehearing has

expired.” (Again the court is trying to alter my

petition for my jury trials into a petition for

rehearings in favor of the government in order

to send my cases to the United States Supreme

Court for a writ of certiorari to be written and

be told that it was out of time filed and not in

the correct form to be filed.)

a ae Rae er

App. 27

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS PROVIDED ARE:

1) My guaranteed and automatic demanded jury trials

after I entered in my NOT GUILTY pleas on arraignment.

287 F. 2d 435, 440-441; and 128 F. 2d 265, 270.

2) Iam the only one who could have entered into a plea

bargaining agreement or into a rehabilitative program

with the prosecutor if I wanted to avoid jury trials. 404

U.S. 257, 260-261.

3) No judge can claim there was a recognition of any

plea bargains that led them to change my NOT GUILTY

pleas to being GUILTY, and withdrawing my JURY

DEMANDS for their GUILTY, JUDGMENT GUILTY ver-

dict. See, ABA Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice —

Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty Ch. 14 (1986).

4) My received indictments had to have been presented

by a grand jury who investigated the accusations with

established evidence.

5) No Court can approve dismissals without my knowl-

edge or consent by soliciting agencies to write me up as

suffering from an incurable “paranoid delusional disor-

der, persecutory type” without a guilty plea from me, a

fair hearing or Court Orders showing that I asked,

applied or failed a jurisdiction’s test, required in South

Carolina’s statutes.

6) Any dismissals by reason of insanity are unconstitu-

tional because: 7

a) The Durham Rule was no longer in force in the Dis-

trict of Columbia, having been negated by the American

App. 28

Law Institute’s Model Penal Code test, § 4.01 (1), now

used by a number of jurisdictions. 471 F. 2d 969, 971;

b) It is one of the COMMON LAW PLEAS which have

been abolished or made obsolete by the Federal Rules of

Civil procedure;

c) I did not take a jurisdiction’s test as evidence that I

failed nor was ordered by the Courts;

d) It had to have come as a result of a special form of

verdict or finding; and

e) There are no findings by a jury, judge or psychiatrist

that I failed a jurisdiction’s test.

7) A verdict had to have come from a jury trial based on

facts and a trial court I never had. See 446 S.W. 2d 243,

244. Green, Civil Procedure. 208 (2d ed. 1979)

8) Verification must have come from everyone’s reports

that they had investigated and affirmed they had proba-

ble cause for their overt actions. 12 F. 2d 81; and 105 P. 59,

63.

9) Probable cause had to have been established from a

showing of cumulative knowledge by investigating offi-

cers, See 380 U.S. 102, 111, or on corroborated informa-

tion by the informer’s reliability, or by the cumulative

affect of other information and observations made by the

police. See 393 U.S. 410; 103 S. Ct. 2317 and See 287 U.S.

206.

10) Fair hearings under due process of law for both

cases. See, e.g. 294 F. 2d 150; See 212 F. 275, 277; 7 Pet. 243

(1833); 302 U.S. 319; 297 U.S. 309; 397 U.S. 254, 262-263

and 341 U.S. 123, 162-163.

eat Hem Rirtils ast LP

App. 29

11) No false arrests and no false imprisonments, 193

N.E. 2d 485, 489; 219 F. 2d 622, 624; 70 So. 734, 736, with

physical muscle and ligament damages, 195 S.W. 2d 312,

314, as a tort by police officers, 109 A. 2d 128, 131; 172

N.E. 2d 380, 381-82, and gives rise to criminal liability for

lack of evidence for malpractice reports and my civil

commitment. See Model Penal Code § 212.3.

12) No U.S. Department of Justice falsely charging me

with being in violation of the laws and forced into court

by the United States of America to answer to “infamous

crimes” without justification. 342 F. Supp. 1048, 1062.

13) No civil commitment by malpractice without any

evaluations, observations or a diagnosis. 134 S.E. 527; 234

N.Y.S. 52, 53; and F. Supp. 394, 399; 236 N.Y.S. 641, as a

tort. 256 N.E. 2d 254, 259. Also no intentional torts by

government employees, or solicited agencies are allowed.

28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b); 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) and 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1491-1506.

14) No waiving of my civil and constitutional rights by

the government, 200 A. 2d 166, 172, to satisfy its desires

without my jury trials.

15) I was to have been given notice, with my consent,

for a waiver. See e.g. Miranda rule; 104 N.W. 12; 159 So.

2d 888 and Prosser & Keeton, Torts, § 32, 189-190 (5th ed.

1984). This deprived my vested rights. 65 N.W. 2d 785,

791 and 84 P. 552, 554.

16) No convictions by the judges declaring me guilty by

reason of insanity with a judgment that I was found

“unfit for duty” and incurably mentally ill without justi-

fication or evidence. 342 F. Supp. 1048, 1062.

App. 30

17) No infliction of irreparable damages to my body

with a stigma to my character and reputation that is

reversible in a court of law. 317 S.W. 2d 260, 263; See 130

N.E. 2d 758, 763, 297 N.E. 2d 557, 561.

18) My rights to privacy in my house robe inside the

house, used by the police to falsely claim I was insane

while I was caring for my ill-mother with her consent and

her doctor’s orders while she was recovering from a

massivesheart-attack. 127 So. 2d 715, 716; S.W. 2d 668; 553

F. Supp. 1121; 424 U.S. 693, 712.

19) The Bill of Rights, 381 U.S. 479, especially the First,

Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, 410 U.S.

113, 440 U.S. 301, 318. Also as a tort. Prosser & Keeton,

Torts § 117 (5th ed. 1984).

20) The Bill of Rights that are found in the federal

constitutional rights now applicable to states by the Four-

teenth Amendments. 391 U.S. 145. See bill of attainder;

due process; equal protection; ex post facto laws; search

and seizure; void for vagueness and unconstitutional.

21) All indictable “infamous crimes” that rendered me

convicted and incompetent as a witness to prevent my

evidence from being heard in a court of law against my

accusers, 4 N. Y. Cr. R. 545, 546; 189 S.E. 441, involving

elements of fraud and deceit [crimen falsi] 23 F. 136, 137,

MUST SHOW EVIDENCE. :

22) The estoppel doctrine prevents anyone from deny-

ing the truth of facts which has, by law, become settled by

the acts of the parties which the policy of the law will not

permit them to deny. 51 S. E. 514, 521. It creates an

App. 31

inhibition or inability for any party to assert it. 106 F. 687,

691.

23) No concerted actions, 416 F. 2d 857, 860, with evi-

dence of everyone sharing the same criminal intent of the

actual perpetrators to “ruin my life and have me civilly

committed into the mental hospital to be induced with

the mental illness as a cover up. 6 S.E. 2d 647, 649.

24) No joint tortifeasor actions by anyone who owed me

the same duty of protection and where negligence

resulted. 194 N. W. 2d 564, 565; 277 F. Supp. 457, 461.

25) No state actions where the District of Columbia and

South Carolina have violated my Civil Rights. 438 F.

Supp. 47.

26) No one acting under color of state laws under the

Civil Rights Act. 365 U.S. 167; 564 F. 2d 849, 855.

27) No one acting under “color of law,” 202 N. W. 144,

148, depriving me of my Civil Rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

28) No acts of tort, 256 N. E. 2d 254, 259, and no inten-

tional torts by law enforcement persons, 28 U.S.C. § 2680

(h), as a 1974 amendment extended this federal act.

29) Equal protection of the laws as a constitutional guar-

antee embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

30) No malice, 99 A. 2d 849, 854; no malice afore-

thought, 362 F. 2d 770, 774; no malfeasance, 97 S. E. 2d 33,

42: no malum in se, 373 S. W. 2d 90, 93; no malicious

prosecutions, 164 So. 2d 745, 750; 52 N. W. 2d 86 and no

malpractice by anyone. 134 S. E. 527; 234 N. Y. S. 52, 53

and 72 F. Supp. 394, 399; 236 N. Y. S. 641.

App. 32

31) No negligence per se by anyone. 3 Cal. Rptr. 274,

275; 278 S. W. 2d 466, 470; 31 F. 755, 756.

32) No judgments of guilty by reason of insanity, con-

victions and a sentence into the mental hospital without

following the Criminal Laws and Procedures for South

Carolina and the District of Columbia, and without hon-

oring my “NOT GUILTY PLEAS” at arraignments. 232 F.

Supp. 255, 257; 214 A. 2d 393, 405 and 316 P. 917, 919.

33) No plea bargaining negotiations, in my absence,

without my consent or knowledge, to falsely claim that I

asked to be rehabilitated for dismissals or reduced sen-

tences to prevent both cases from going to trials. 404 U.S.

257, 260-261.

34) No bill of attainder used, 381 U.S. 437, 448, prohib-

ited in the United States Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3;

35 N. E. 951, 952.

35) No ex post facto laws, 171 S. W. 2d 880, in violation

of Art. I Secs. 9 (C1.3) & 10 of the Constitution of the

United States and are now applied to both charged crimi-

nal cases by the criminal statutes. 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390.

36) Justice, which provides for following the law and

equity, as a means for achieving a lawful result when a

legal procedure is inadequate. 29 N. Y. S. 342, 243; 6 N. Y.

S. 2d 720, 721; 293 F. 633, 637.

37) No use of plain error that I could not object to and

went unnoticed which has affected my fundamental

rights to fair trials that 1 demanded on arraignments. 597

F. 2d 1170, 1199. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (b).

38) No changing of my NOT GUILTY pleas on arraign-

ments with my denial of every essential elements of the

App. 33

criminal offenses charged. 287 F. 2d 435, 440-441. My

NOT GUILTY pleas on arraignment obliges the govern-

ment to prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and

preserves my rights to defend myself. 129 F. 2d 265, 273.

39) No invasion of privacy rights from published, aired

and word of mouth false criminal charges causing suffer-

ing, humiliation, slander and libel as an intentional tort.

389 U.S. 347; 127 So. 2d 715; 540 S. W. 2d 668, 67.

40) “Zones of privacy created by specific constitutional

guarantees and imposes a limit upon governmental

power” to have created false criminal charges without

probable cause. 424 U.S. 693, 712.

41) Not to have placed me in a false light by associat-

ing me with false beliefs of committing criminal acts with

a mental illness; and being a self-reported drug abuser

with knowledge of its falsity. Prosser & Keeton, Torts

§ 117 (5th ed. 1984).

42) My cases are retroactive and permit a collateral

attack based on a rule of law with the court’s previous

judgments, without a jury that impaired my vested rights

under existing laws, and creates a new obligation with

the cases still on direct review. 171 S. W. 2d 880; 65 N. W.

2d 785, 791; 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390; and 457 U.S. 537, 543.

43) Habeas corpus as a “collateral atack” remedy for

obtaining a judicial determination of the legality of my

custody. 488 F. 218, 221.

44) The writ of federal habeas corpus that pierces

through the formalities of both state convictions, to deter-

mine if they were in consonant with due process of law.

261 U.S. 86.

App. 34

45) The writ of federal habeas to be used in the civil

context to challenge the validity of my civil commitment

with neither the federal nor civil habeas corpus having

any limitation based on the violation of the Bill of Rights

and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

46) No harassment in criminal matters with the govern-

ment, agencies, etc., having brought about a prosecution

neither expected to bring to a valid conviction, but was to

stigmatize me for discriminatory and malign purposes.

437 F. Supp. 201, 221.

47) No use of bias hate crimes that have humiliated,

disgraced, belittled and assaulted my character and repu-

tation; See N. J. S. A. 2C:44-3e; that the government hada

right to have prevented. 249 U.S. 47, 52.

48) No conflict of interest lending toward the govern-

ment on behalf of a Sedition Illegal Action person with-

out American citizenship, etc. in disregards to my rights,

the facts and its duty to me for my guaranteed jury trials,

463 F. 2d 600, 602; with no clash between the public’s and

my interests, concerns and safety. 514 F. 2d 38, 41.

49) No clerical errors by returning my cases as retired

records when nil can be retired until and unless I waive

my rights; and they have not been heard for the first time

nor reviewed by the justices of the United States Supreme

Court with at least 4 of the 9 reviewing them.

50) The United States Constitution and laws giving the

Supreme Court both original jurisdiction in all cases

affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and coun-

sels, and all cases decided by the lower federal courts and

cases decided by state courts involving issues of federal

App. 35

laws, as mine. U.S. Constitution, Art. II], Sec. 2, Cl. 2; 28

U.S.C. §§ 1251 et. seq.

51) No abandoning of NOTICE and the opportunity to

be heard MUST be observed. 419 U.S. 601.

52) No written, aired and published statements of

deceit, 300 P. 2d 14, 16; fraud, 310 F. 2d 262, 267; 234 F.

Supp. 201, 203; perjury, Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law

511 (3d ed. 1982); Model Penal Code § 241.1; and subor-

nation of perjury. See 262 F. 2d 788, 794.

53) Jurisdiction’s proceedings to allow me to defend

myself against the government's false criminal charges,

and bias judgments in a court of law. 37 F. 470, 488 and

136 F. 2d 790, 791.

54) No government or agencies to have written clear

and present dangerous false malicious and malpractice

statements that brought about the evil it had a right to

have prevented. 249 U.S. 47, 52; 134 S.E. 527; 234 N.Y.S.

52, 53; 72 F. Supp. 394, 399; 236 N.Y.S. 641.

55) No government to have used the credibility of a

court documented SIA person, Officers Brantley and Sim-

pkins, etc., and contracted agencies for the purpose of

covering up and supporting themselves. 314 F. 2d 718,

749; and 776 P. 2d 1283, 1284.

56) No government, agencies or employees to have

cooperated in the common effort that obtained the cruel

and unusual punishment I have received, whereof each

party share the same responsibility for all that has been

done to me. 47 F. Supp. 395, 400-01.

57) No government or agencies to have abridged my

civil and-constitutional rights that gives a permanence

App. 36

and stability to government and is not designed to pro-

tect the majority, but to protect my rights as a minority

against discriminatory actions and writs of one’s own

choice. 208 U.S. 412, 420.

58) The government is to conform to the basic laws in

the Constitution to which ALL MUST CONFORM. Espe-

cially after the inferior court gave me the use of an

extension of time to write the certiorari writ (requested

by them); and after the United States Supreme Court gave

me permission to rewrite and resubmit, using both

court’s paper, and stamped Hand Delivered on time. 140

F. Supp. 925.

59) No government can cancel, by authority, the U.S.

Constitution or the State Constitution, even in part, by

statute. 140 F. Supp. 925, 928.

60) No government can abridge my invested liberties

granted by a state or the federal Constitution that pro-

tects me from governmental interferences. 389 U.S. 258.

61) No malicious prosecutions from a previous unsuc-

cessful criminal proceeding without probable cause with

malice, which provides recovery of damages to my repu-

tation, etc. 52 N.W. 2d 86, 90.

62) No miscarriage of justice or misconduct in office

that have denied my jury trials with a showing of preju-

dice and bias, and justifies reversing the previous judg-

ments. 71 P. 2d 220, 253-254; 185 A. 2d 45, 47; and 318 A.

2d 783, 786.

63) The mandamus writ to be accepted as an absolute

duty and as an emergency for justice with all other

App. 37

judicial remedies failing me or are inadequate. 9 F. Supp.

422, 423; 74 P. 695, 501.

64) No suppression of evidence in violation of due

process of law, my civil and constitutional rights. U.S.

383; and now includes state criminal trials. 367 U.S. 642;

McCormick, Evidence § 273 (4th ed. 1992).

65) Reversible errors. See 314 P. 2d 973, 976.

66) Joinder cases. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18 (a). See also id. at

rules 19-23.

67) No one to have used statutes found to be uncon-

stitutional to deny my jury trials that conflict with some

provision of the United States Constitution, the state con-

stitutional provisions and laws, and the existing written

legislation. See generally 1 F. 2d 1001, 1002; 498 P. 2d 9,

14; 57 A. L. R. 3d 1058, 1065. When a statute is found to

be unconstitutional, it is considered void or as if it had

never been, and consequently all rights, contracts, or

duties that depend on it are void. Thus, no one can be

punished for having refused obedience to a law/rule

once it is found to be unconstitutional. Even if the invaiid

part can be severed, the constitutional part continues to

stand for me to receive my timely requested, promised

on court documents, and guaranteed jury trials by both

the U.S. Constitution and the South Carolina Constitu-

tion. 315 U.S. 568, 572.

App. 38

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-PRETRIAL SERVICES

*THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED FOR

USE IN DETERMINING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Lockup No. 434 FEBRUARY 01, 1994

UNITED SATES OF AMERICA v. LIZZY LOU SIMPSON

CHARGE: THREATS DATE OF BIRTH: 04-21-39

ADDRESS:

CURRENT ADDRESS: 1515 PENN. AVE., S.E.

WASHINGTON, DC 20003

LIVES WITH: ALONE

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE: 7 YRS

UNVERIFIED

EMPLOYMENT /SCHOOL/SUPPORT:

PRESENT STATUS: EMPLOYED

WHERE: DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS

HOW LONG: 32 YRS

TYPE OF WORK: TEACHER

UNVERIFIED

COMMUNITY TIES/EDUCATION:

DC AREA RESIDENT FOR: 32 YEARS STEADILY

YEARS EDUCATION: 016

MARITAL STATUS: SINGLE

OTHER FAMILY IN AREA NOT LIVING WITH

DEFENDANT:

COUSINS

AUNTS

NIECE

UNVERIFIED

HEALTH HISTORY:

PRESENT STATUS: PHYSICAL PROBLEM

HOW LONG: UNKNOWN

App. 39

WHERE TREATED: PRIVATE DOCTOR

REMARKS: TAKES RX FOR NERVES

SELF-REPORTED SUBSTANCE ABUSE

FROM: 10-11-90

THE DEFENDANT REPORTS NO CURRENT DRUG

USE

THAT [ILLEGIBLE] NOF REGULAR

FROM: 2-01-94 2-01-84 From 2-01-94

No Information Available

Pretrial Services Case No: 94032990 BAID 94032928

10:49 A.M.

App. 40

ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). Seditious com-

munication can be punished as a “libel case” consistent

with the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amend-

ments with it presenting a “clear and present danger” to

Mother’s and my safety. It shows in each parties written

printed, aired, and circulated false statements or they

should have known them to have been false and mali-

ciously written. It was to expose us to public hatred,

ridicule, harassment, humiliation and contempt that has

injured our character and reputation. It includes the

attempt to give me a permanent mental illness and being

remembered as a released prisoner without probable

caus

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.