No. 24-6142

Warren Lee Weisman v. Charles E. Clark

Lower Court: Washington
Docketed: 2024-12-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-interpretation due-process fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment judicial-bias linguistic-drift
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)

There can be only one correct judicial interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution. Courts have departed from this one correct interpretation through "linguistic drift" disabling the self-correcting function, of scientific impartiality, of the courts with intentional or unintentional bias. Due process rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require strict separation of civil law voted into law by legislatures from criminal law which cannot be out-voted by any majority to maintain the self-correcting function of the courts.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether courts have deviated from the original constitutional intent through linguistic drift and bias, undermining due process and the self-correcting function of judicial interpretation

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-13
Waiver of Charles E. Clark of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-13
Waiver of right of respondent Charles E. Clark to respond filed.
2024-12-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 13, 2025)

Attorneys

Charles E. Clark
Peter Benjamin GonickAttorney General of Washington, Respondent
Warren Lee Weisman
Warren Lee Weisman — Petitioner