OPF wrote:So, who can explain Habeas Corpus and dispute what I have written?
Why do the courts avoid answering the Petition?
The attorneys I have spoken to, about that, have no answer and don't understand why the court doesn't simply answer and put it to rest.
I am reminded, for some reason, of one of my favorite M*A*S*H* episodes - Season 4's Quo Vadis, Captain 495 U.Chandler
, which featured the treatment of Captain Chandler, a bombardier who was convinced that he was Christ. At one point in the episode, psychiatrist Sydney Freedman asks Chandler, "Tell me, is it true that God answers all prayers?" Chandler answers, with a tear running down his face, "Yes. Sometimes the answer is no."
I have not reviewed all of the filings in all of your attempts to represent (without benefit of law license) other people, but as far as I can tell from the ones that I've seen you have been answered. You may not like the answer, but that doesn't mean the answer does not exist. The federal courts cannot entertain your habeas
filings on behalf of other people because: (1) you are not the person seeking habeas
relief; (2) you are not a licensed attorney; and (3) you utterly fail to meet the requirements for "next friend" standing. As a result, the federal courts cannot entertain your buffoonery without exceeding the limitations placed on them by the Constitution.
And, yes, I have read Whitmore
. That case, in fact, makes it clear that you may not act as a prisoner's "next friend" unless you meet a list of specific requirements:
Whitmore v. Arkansas
Most important for present purposes, "next friend" standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another. Decisions applying the habeas corpus statute have adhered to at least two firmly rooted prerequisites for "next friend" standing. First, a "next friend" must provide an adequate explanation -- such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the "next friend" must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been further suggested that a "next friend" must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. The burden is on the "next friend" clearly to establish the propriety of his status, and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.
... Indeed, if there were no restriction on "next friend" standing in federal courts, the litigant asserting only a generalized interest in constitutional governance could circumvent the jurisdictional limits of Art. III simply by assuming the mantle of "next friend."
, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In Quo Vadis
, Chandler was able - despite his mental illness - to grasp the concept that an answer that you dislike is still an answer. You should try to grasp that concept.
There's another quote from that episode that's relevant to your complaints about your treatment here. Freedman is speaking to Colonel Flagg: "You're a victim too, Flagg. But you're such an unbelievable example of walking fertilizer, it's hard for me to care."