3 days ago

168

Andy filed Writ of Habeas Corpus in US District Court of Connecticut today.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JUNE 25, 2024
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY SUI JURIS PETITIONER, ANDREW HAMILTON PRITCHARD, BENEFICIARY IN EQUITY/EXECUTOR OF 9 SYLVESTER COURT, NORWALK, CONNECTICUT PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 US CODE 2254 AS ALL OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT LEGAL REMEDIES ARE EXHAUSTED; THE COMPLICIT JUDGES ARE “ENEMIES” OF THE US CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AS DEFINED BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 (TITLE 50 US CODE 2204); AND THE COMPLICIT PARTICIPANTS WILLFULLY CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (TITLE 18 US CODE 2331) TO SAMUEL A. MAGLIARI JR., “WHISTLEBLOWER’ AND SUI JURIS DEFENDANT OF FALSE CHARGES (RAILROADED), AND “WE THE PEOPLE” OF US CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AS RATIFIED JUNE 21, 1788.
EXCESSIVE FORCE, KIDNAPPING, IMPRISONMENT, FORCED DRUGGING, SEIZURE, NO LIBERTY, NO JURISDICTION, AND “WAR AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION-TREASON” by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Scott M. Jones, Judge Gary White, Judge Peter McShane, Judge Mary Elizabeth Reid, Judge Maria Gonzalez, Judge John F. Blawie, Judge Kevin Randolph, Judge Bruce Hudock, Judge Kenneth Provodator, and Judge Kevin Hernandez, and other Complicit Participants attacking Samuel A Magliari Jr., an American private individual coming forward as a “Whistleblower” for crimes within the City of Stamford meet the definition of High Crimes.
Please Note: The Complicit Participants operate in tribunals, not Article III courts as demanded and required for the claimed Jurisdiction of the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, as ratified June 21, 1788.
There is obvious Judicial Bias as demonstrated by the April 13, 2024, Default of CGS 54-82m Speedy Trial which is WILLFULLY DIREGARDED an ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATION (NO IMMUNITY).
Recent Events:
The recent Kangaroo Tribunal conducted by Traitor Judge Scott M. Jones in Bridgeport Court (no jurisdiction) demonstrates without question the lawless representation of Justice, RAILROADED.
Right from the start Complicit Judge Jones DENIED Defendant’s, Samuel A. Magliari, Jr., stated jurisdiction of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789. This is “War against the Constitution, Treason.”
"Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts". Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023)
Then Complicit Judge Jones Denied the Defendant’s Right to Counsel as per the Judiciary Act of 1789 Section 35 and the Administrative Act of 1946 Section 6. This is an Administrative Violation of Duty; thus, Complicit Judge Jones has NO IMMUNITY.
On June 3, 2024, Complicit Judge DENIED a Motion for Disqualification in violation of Judicial Code of Conduct Canon 2, Rule 2.11 Disqualification, CT PB Section 1-22 and CT PB 1-23 Disqualification.
Common Law: Nemo Judex in Causa Sua..”No man can be judge in his own trial.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
Also on June 3, 2024, Complicit Judge Jones Denied the following Motions for Notice of Adjudicative Fact:

The SUI JURIS Defendant demands the Court AFFIRM or DENY that this is Section 6A of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. DENIED

The SUI JURIS Defendant demands the Court AFFIRM or DENY that this is Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 with all the authority defined by The Judiciary Act of 1789. DENIED

The SUI JURIS Defendant demands the Court AFFIRM or DENY that this is an Article III Court with all the authority defined by The Judiciary Act of 1789. DENIED

The SUI JURIS Defendant demands the Court AFFIRM or DENY the oath states the following DENIED
The Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Fact that states a Connecticut Judge’s Oath was DENIED by Complicit Scott M. Jones. This is “War against the Constitution” and “engages in the act of Treason”.
On June 20, 2024, Samuel A. Magliari, Jr. tried to deliver to Complicit Judge Jones the Habeas Corpus of Petitioner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard. Complicit Judge Jones refused the Writ of Habeas Corpus a violation of CGS 52-467 Punishment for refusal to obey writ or accept copy.
Complicit Judge Jones is GUILTY of CONTEMPT OF COURT as stated in CGS 52-467.
Chapter 915 Habeas Corpus Sec. 52-467. Punishment for refusal to obey writ or accept copy. If any person having the custody of the body of anyone directed to be presented to the court or to a judge by a writ of habeas corpus duly served fails to present the body according to the command in the writ, or refuses to accept the copy of the writ offered in service, or in any way fraudulently avoids presenting the body according to the command, or, having presented the body, does not make return of the cause of detaining the person in custody, he shall be guilty of a contempt of court and may be punished for contempt by the court or judge by commitment, and shall pay to the person so held in custody two hundred dollars.
On June 21, 2024, Petitioner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, went to Bridgeport Superior Court to deliver the Habeas Corpus directly to Complicit Judge Jones. Once in Court Room 3D, the Petitioner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, summoned a Judicial Marshal to pass the Habeas Corpus to Complicit Judge Jones. The Judicial Marshal refused to do it and threatened the Petitioner that he would be removed from the Court House.
The Judicial Marshal is GUILTY of Contempt of Court as stated in CGS 52-467.
At this time, Petitioner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, stood up until the Complicit Judge Jones recognized him. At that point, the Petitioner stated that he had a Habeas Corpus related to Sam Magliari Jr. Complicit Judge Jones did not accept the Habeas Corpus and ordered the Judicial Marshals to throw the Petitioner out of the Courthouse.
Complicit Judge Jones and the Complicit Judicial Marshals are GUILTY of CONTEMPT OF COURT as stated in CGS 52-467.
On June 24, 2024, “Whistleblower” Samuel A. Magliari, Jr. was found guilty of 9 of 10 charges they fraudulently constructed and hit him with $1 million dollar bond!!!
Amdt8.1.1.2.1 Excessive Bail Prohibition: Current Doctrine
Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The Court first tested and upheld under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a state statute providing for preventive detention of juveniles.1 Then, in United States v. Salerno,2 the Court upheld application of preventive detention provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 against facial challenge under the Eighth Amendment. The function of bail, the Court explained, is limited neither to preventing flight of the defendant prior to trial nor to safeguarding a court’s role in adjudicating guilt or innocence. “[W]e reject the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release.” 3 Instead, “[t]he only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil.” 4 “[D]etention prior to trial of arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel” satisfies this requirement.5
Bail is “excessive” in violation of the Eighth Amendment when it is set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the asserted governmental interest.6 If the only asserted interest is to guarantee that the accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty, then “bail must be set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.” 7 To challenge bail as excessive, one must move for a reduction, and, if that motion is denied, appeal to the Court of Appeals, and, if unsuccessful, appeal to the Supreme Court Justice sitting for that circuit.8 The Amendment is apparently inapplicable to postconviction release pending appeal, but the practice has apparently been to grant such releases.9
From a Bondsman “$1 million that is BIG. A rape charge is usually $250,000. I don’t know if…”
Sam was never arrested until he came forward to tell the truth.
Sam is bonded higher than rapist, murderers, and any other violent criminal.
Below are screenshots before they get creatively altered of his Fraudulent Record, 5 misdemeanors.

MORE IMPORTANT MATERIAL INFORMATION: On Thursday June 13, 2024, Samuel A. Magliari, Jr. car was surrounded by nine Stamford PD Officers to arrest Sam. Stamford PD did not produce a warrant and smashed the driver side window to grab Sam. Sam spent the night in jail and was before the Court on Friday June 14, 2024. Sam was released on bond with an ankle bracelet, an inventory sheet and his belongings.
Next Sam went to get his impounded car only to discover that all his Court Documents and his laptop computer were gone.
Sam went to the Stamford Police Station to his if they knew where his laptop and Court Documents might be. He needed them for Court on Monday June 17, 2024, for Bridgeport Court.
That night Sam did a search on “Find my Device” and discovered that his laptop was at the Stamford Police Station.
So, on Sunday June 16, 2024, Sam returned to Stamford Police Station and filed a stolen property complaint, and asked the Stamford PD if they had his important laptop and Court Documents. Stamford PD said “No, we don’t have it.”

On Monday June 17, 2024, Samuel A. Magliari, Jr. before Complicit Judge Jones on the record said that he could not go forward without his laptop and Court Documents. Complicit Judge Jones did not care and pushed on.
During that exchange Complicit Assistant Deputy State Attorney Laurence Tamaccio stated that Sam’s laptop was at Stamford PD, and he could pick it up after court.
Complicit Assistant Deputy State Attorney Laurence Tamaccio is GUILTY of illegal search and seizure, larceny, obstructing justice, and more.
The Stamford PD and Assistant Deputy State Attorney conspired to assault, terrorize, and seize his material for Sam’s defense.
It is the only explanation for Assistant Deputy State Attorney Laurence Tamaccio knowing the laptop was at Stamford PD.
Obviously, Stamford PD is GUILTY of illegal search and seizure, larceny, obstructing justice, and more.

Loading 6 comments...