Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

In Re Jack R. Finnegan

Paid petition


Certiorari denied · October 15, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

  1. Was Petitioner denied his Constitutional guaranteed rights, power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under the Constitution, and of Due Process and Equal Protection by the Void order for an appointment of a Receiver, in denial of statutes, and decisional laws. Rights are such as belonging to every citizen of the United States by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, gTH ioth, and 14th, Amendments. The Constitutional provision of the Due Process Clause requires trial-type hearings prior to the infringement of individuals’ rights and entitlements? Notable, in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).

  2. Was Petitioner denied his Constitutional guaranteed rights, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, pursuant to the First Amendment by the improper protection of a 13-year senior research attorney (court judge) by the Opinion (Opinion) of the 4th Appellate Court. The improper Notice must be to convey the required information in a point-size of type that complies with the statutes, this was not due process or equal protection?

  3. Was Petitioner denied under the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment guarantee that the government must treat a person or class of persons the same as other persons or classes in like circumstances? The ground for equitable relief among others is fraud by preventing a fair adversary proceeding, which cannot be enforced. United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jack R. Finnegan

For respondent

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 15 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Sep 18 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
  3. Jun 20 2019
    Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due September 5, 2019)