Michigan Ignores Amendment VII

[James E. White]

U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 (Appendix F¹):
1. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution …
2. In all Cases … in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

U.S. Const. Art. VI (Appendix G):
2. This Constitution, … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Const. Amend. VII (Appendix H):
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, …

Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 600.6443 (Appendix R):
The case shall be heard by the judge without a jury. …


In fact, the State of Michigan further insisted via clerical action (Appendix B), which gave rise to this case, that U.S. Const. Amend. VII need not be followed by the State of Michigan. The Judiciary of Michigan (Appendix C and Appendix D) simply accepted the clerical action and never addressed Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial (Appendix A) nor noted MCL 600.6443 (Appendix R) which appears to conflict with both MCL 600.6421(1) (Appendix P) and U.S. Const. Amend. VII. The Michigan Judiciary, while apparently recognizing the damage to Plaintiff due to the State of Michigan not obeying MCL 421.31 (Appendix L) then went on to insist Plaintiff (the State’s victim) was somehow responsible for not avoiding the harm done and besides, Michigan has no explicit law re damages for the specifics the State did in this case. The long history of common law damages for State abuses predating even the United States apparently being treated as irrelevant in spite of U.S. Const. Amend. IX (Appendix I).

Plaintiff filed the case with the Michigan Court of Claims in its exclusive jurisdiction as an MCL 600.6419 (Appendix O) demand for monetary and equitable relief against the state and to avoid the extra step of MCL 600.6404(3) (Appendix N). Plaintiff had no reason to believe MCL 600.6440 (Appendix Q) was or would be applicable at that time.

Added the 20241011_... and 20241127_... attachments. Basically the SC Clerk claims Hans v Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) was a Supreme Court decision overturning the Constitutional right to sue a State by a citizen of that State in the Supreme Court for Constitutional violations. I rebut that in my reply to the Clerk showing that the Hans decision denied suing in the SC for State (delayed) payment issues.

¹ Appendixes are in the 20240923_... attachment.