The problem with summarily dismissing bizarre conspiracy theories is that some conspiracies that actually occurred in real life sounded bizarre before they happened. Such as exterminating jews and homosexuals and tutsis. For all of our freedom, we need the courts to be open to receive and consider conspiracy complaints. I don't have a problem using taxpayer dollars to pay judges to read conspiracy theories.

I looked at the link and didn't see any criminal acts described.

Newby's description stated three criminal acts --1.) obstruction of justice (interference with filing of mandamus petition) 2.) illegal warrant (without petition by a federal government attorney for a government purpose to a federal court) and 3.) criminal violation of the Privacy Act (creation of records about an individual without an authorized government purpose). The problem with Newby's complaint, apparently, is that she had no evidence that supported her complaint and at least some evidence is required to sustain a complaint to get to discovery.

Dear Boris

Your comment is too vague for me. Are you referring to criminal prosecutions of organizations?

I am a pro se self appointed access to courts advocate. I also have a degree in city planning and I was drawn into the courts in a dispute involving land use lawyer. My former next door neighbor Jane Bennett wife of the president of the Steamboat Springs City council obtained a domestic restraining order on me on the basis that I told her that just because she was married to the president of the city council didn't entitle her to break the law by building extra buildings that violated the zoning and development laws. No statutory basis was cited for the injunction, I was not allowed an extension to get a lawyer despite having only three days notice, I was not allowed to ask questions about Mrs. Bennetts' financial motivations, and I was advised by the county judge that I would never be able to find a constitutional lawyer who would sue the City of Steamboat Springs. Following that Mrs. Bennett followed me around Steamboat Springs asking the police to arrest me and put me in jail based on her reports that she followed me through a store trying to take my picture to prove she was near me, saw me waiting at a red light while she was inside a nearby building ,and that I sent a fax of intent to sue to the city council.

Because my facts concerned land and buildings there is evidence that wouldn't be there otherwise. For instance, there are buildings discussed in court documents and accompanied by building permits and photographs that aren't on the Routt County property tax rolls. Also, the former local government official Kevin Bennett recently admitted that he was convicted of conspiracy to sell hashish but he didn't divulge that in his 8 years of supervising the Steamboat Springs police department. See
http://www.exploresteamboat.com/news/2009/sep/30/candidates_divided_financing_issue/

Here is a recent Maryland Supreme Court procedural due process decision that I think applies to all claims of constitutional deprivations and sets the standard for a de novo review: Grasslands Plantation, Inc. v. Frizz-King Enterprises, LLC., No. 117, September Term, 2008 "The Board’s purely de novo review proceeding was “‘an entirely new hearing at which time all aspects of the case should be heard anew, as if no decision has been previously rendered[.]’” Halle Companies v. Crofton Civic Ass’n, 339 Md. 131, 144, 661 A.2d 682, 688 (1995)...The Board erred in shifting the burden of proof from Frizz-King, the subdivision applicant, to Grasslands, the appellant in the Board’s de novo review proceeding."

The way that the burden of proof was shifted is that the first decision didn't result in a decision in which the decision criteria and findings were stated as required. Those requirements continued through the de novo proceeding. The Maryland Supreme Court found "all matters “‘which come before the Board pursuant to its exercise of original jurisdiction shall receive a de novo hearing on all issues... recognize the distinction between a de novo appeal and an appeal on the record and require that the Board’s rules of practice and procedure not be inconsistent with the requirements set forth in Maryland’s Administrative Procedure Act ... when a county law provides for a hearing, due process requires that it be a meaningful hearing. In this case, the hearing
before the Board is the first hearing. Under these circumstances, the Board’s role is more akin to a second tier administrative agency, rather than a first tier judicial reviewer, as appellee suggests. This approach is also consistent with other provisions contained in section 2.210, which explain how to conduct a de novo appeal, and with section 16.301, which permits the Board to hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that DPZ committed error,...the Board “must include specific findings of fact and conclusions in its opinion, whether it conducts the proceedings itself or on appeal after remand to the Planning Commission...de novo means that the Board of Appeals may hear testimony and consider additional evidence pertaining to the issue or issues presented on appeal .... we have consistently treated de novo appeals as wholly original proceedings, with the word ‘appeal’ meaning simply that the proceedings are new and independent rather than strict review of prior proceedings.”...“Thus, it is said that where a statute provides that an appeal shall be heard de novo such a hearing is in no sense a review of the
hearing previously held, but is a complete trial of the controversy, the same as if no previous hearing had ever been held, especially where the hearing is in a court of general, original jurisdiction. Where a statute provides for a trial de novo and does not provide that the findings of the administrative agency shall be conclusive or of any force, the whole matter is opened up for consideration on appeal as if the proceeding had been originally brought in the reviewing court.” Boehm, 54 Md. App. at 509-10, 459 A.2d at 598 (quoting 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 698 (1962))..If the matter truly is to be heard “anew, the same as if it had not been heard before,” it follows that the parties in the de novo proceeding must remain in the same procedural posture that they maintained in the initial proceeding, and that the burden of demonstrating entitlement to the relief sought remains with the same party -- the applicant -- throughout. . . . Shifting the burden to the “appellant” would ignore these basic principles, a result that we decline to adopt."

http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/burden-of-proof-remains-with-subdivision-applicant-before-the-board-of-appeals/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LawOfTheLand+%28LAW+OF+THE+LAND%29

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/117a08.pdf

Basically as I read the decision because the first hearing didn't result in the required findings, the appeals court was required to order or to provide an evidentiary hearing. The first hearing wasn't "meaningful" because the findings weren't made. This would apply to other decisions in which the required findings weren't made. So as I understand it, the only problem is applying the Administrative Procedures Act to judicial proceedings.

So a litigant could potentially invoke the privileges and immunities clause to require the same standards of findings when an administrative court makes decisions about property and when a judicial court makes decisions about property. This is a back road to Rule 52a.

I thought that David Fine is in jail.