| 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fil LED 4 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENESSEE QO1IGHAR 18 PH 1505 TRICT COURT 4 Luis A. del Mazo, Jr, prose, i MIGBLE BISTRICY OF EN Plaintiff ) v. ) ) No. 3:16-0218 MT. JULIET POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Trauger/Brown etal., ) Jury Demand Defendants ) ) ) 1 ) ) TO: THE HONORABLE ALETHA A. TRAUGER 1 AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL 14) As of the date of this amended notice defendants were served and proof of service has been filed. 15) This notice of removal was brought under 28 U.S.C.144l et seq, and 28 U.S.C. 1446 due to the fact ‘hat the original complaint brought by Mt. Juliet police department was set in a General Sessions Court and where the court record was established by plaintiff's demurrer and counter claim.? A Statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or Supreme Court) may not second guess 2q| the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the U.S. acknowledges the 2i)} common law as supreme: The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as 72} conclusive on all the world as the judgment ofthis court would be. It is as conclusive on this court asitis on other courts It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Bx parte ‘Watkins, 3 Pet, at 202-203, [ited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S, 218, 255 (1973)) COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. ‘he former being those whose acts ‘and judicial 28 Po conta iG Cnrlled, or recorded, fora perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or inprisce ‘Re cantempt. Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine ec inpekon asd ene pepipesetings are not enrolled or recorded. 3 Bl, Comm, 24:3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Feicher, @CGe oe 5, sols Ex pate Thistleton, $2 Cal 225; Erwin v. US. D.C.Ga, 37 F488, 2 LRA, 229, Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E, 229, 231.‘Atno time did plaintiff willfully waive any tights? The very act of using threat, force and coercion ‘0 force plaintiff to waive his right is unlawful and evidence of denial of due process and equal ees Sere Protection ofthe law.” Plaintiff never entered an oral plea or brought before a grand jury and is unclear if'a criminal indictment was ever entered or returned, Challenged the “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction ssserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150. Furthermore Plaintiff was denied the right of a speedy trial.* ‘The misdemeanor trafic citation is questionable of denial of a right guaranteed by a federal 4 ‘ighis statute due to the fact Defendants have no proof that muffler violated any law and that imitated an investigation into alleged violation®, Plaintiff was Tacially profiled and stopped in direct 18) *Right to withhoid ranoe ines Curt and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate thatthe consent was in ‘Sct, voluntary; voumtariness isto be determined from the totality of the surrounding circumstances [cited by 19 SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 US, 218,255 (1973 21))"18 USC §1512b Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threaten, or comuptly persuades another person, or attempts to ses eneaes in misleading conduct tovard anctber person, vith itentio-)iaoesee delay, or prevent... an 21 ofa proceeding; 2) cause or induce any person t= (@) wilibold.. tasers ae object, from an official Forme a zat destroy, mutate, or conceal an oficial rocecding;- shall be ned ware i ‘imprisoned 22{|not more than 20 years, or both. 23/4 i proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks Jurisdiction, the court has rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 2d] 505 F2d 1026. 24]]° Failure to commence ral within the speed of all charges. In foderal courts the Speedy Tria 9 ny case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, 24] the tial. the "fling date" ofthe information or indictment or @) the defendants initial 131 S.Ct. 2007 (2011). “Speedy 29) al must beheld within 45 days of arrest. Dilingham v United States, 323 US 6446 LEG 240 Soe j 24) Delaware v Prous (1979), 440 U.S. 648-1 «Supreme Cour casein which a afc “op 4s technically an arrest and seeing ne Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment are implicated in this case Because soptog eae and sep a neggecupan's contute ascizare” within the meaning of hove Amendment, res aan Purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention is quite brief1) violation ofthe “Racial Profiling Prevention Act” and as a result isa victim of “Disparate Impact” being performed by Mt. Juliet Police department and Wilson County Court system. The denial of ‘he right occurred during the false arrest and blatant violation of Tenn, Code Amn. § 40-7-118 even after Plaintiff notified All Defendants ofthe statute and Plaintifts Tight to due process and equal ‘Protection of the law as guaranteed by the fourth and fourteenth Amendments of the constitution? 1 Plaintiff should have never been arrested as er Tenn, Code Ann. § 40-7-118." A misdemeanor offense in not an arrestable offense unless Providing the existence of one of cight exceptions! The 5 fact thatthe witness drove off in the vehicle the alleged offense occurred in, is evidence of the non arestable offense. Furthermore Defendant Kriss Elliott and Mathew Mang, under oath have ‘estified in the incident report that “Upon Retrieving the wallet a name was gotten off a credit card 13| at was inside. Dispatch was able to locate the driver's license and he was identified as Mr. Luis 20) “(The fundamental consiutional guaranties of personal liberty protec private individuals in he right of enjoyment of ‘Personal freedom without unlawful restraint, and it is universally recognized that no one nay be arrested except by due 21}| process of law.” [Ruling Case Law, Vol. 2, 463, Section 21 ]The General Rule of damages in cases of false imprisonment is thatthe person causing the ‘wrongful imprisonment is liable forall the natural and possible consequences thereof. The Plaintitt is entitled to recover damages for what the party wrongfilly did. In Murphy v. Countiss, 1 Harr (Del.)143 in an action for trespass, assault, battery and false imptisonment » the court held that the Plaintiff could recover, not merely forthe time the constable was bringing him to jail, but for ‘he whole time ofthe imprisonment. And in Mandeville v. Guernsey, 51 Barb (N.Y,) 99, the court said: “The arrest being wrongful, the defendant is abe forall the injurious consequences to the Plaintiff which resulted directly from the wrongful act”? ‘A false imprisonment generally includes an assault and battery, and always atleast a technical assault. Anyone who assists or participates in an unlawful arrest or imprisonment is equally liable for the damage caused. '* ‘There is a maxim of law that states “No guilt attaches to him who is compelled to obey” and {another which states “Gross negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong” WHEREFORE, for al these reasons Plaintiff moves the court to remove this case from the Wilson County Courts under U.S.C, 1443 and/or 28 U.S.C.1441 et seq. and 1446 as this notice satisfies the two prong test ld. at *3 (Johnson v. Miss, 421 U.S. 213,291 (1975)) under violations of 1.) Federal statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Violations of forth and fourteenth amendment rights and 2.) Plaintift has not received a fair and impartial trial and itis predicted by the current operation of {he Wilson County Court that Defendants will continue to deprive Plaintif rights of equal Protection of the law. Respectfully Submitted, a eae lea eee cs Knickerbocker Steamboat Co. v. ‘Cusack, 172 Fed. 358 , 360-61 (1905) jz Black v. Clarks Greensboro, Inc, 263 N.C. 226, 139 SE. 2" 199, 20! (1964). has boon sid tha, “an itlegal arrest, i gh assult and battery” State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72.A.(24), 260,262 (1950), "Cook v. Hastings, 150 Mich. 289, 114 N.W. 71,72, 907) 4q Luis A. del Mazo, Jr., Plaintiff TIFIC: F SERVICE Thereby certify thata true and accurate copy of the foregoing document has been served upon : Attention: Steve Daves and Jeff Thompson 7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200 Knoxville, TN 37919 1 ONeil, Parker & Williamson, PLLC 9} Herbert H. Slayer II Aten: Heather C. Ross 1) Attomey General 1)|] Office of the Attomey General P.O. Box 20207 1] Nashville, TN 37202-0207 13 Mt. Juliet Police Department Kriss Bliott 14 Mathew Mang 15] 1019 Charlie Daniels Parkway Mt. Juliet, TN 27122 | 4 by placing the same, postage prepaid in the United States Mail the day of March, 2016 . 19 Luis A. del Mazo, Jr. Pro se al Plaintiff 24 24 2, 2