John C. Stuart v. Arizona

This Supreme Court has always held that state courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction in trials wherein the judge receives additional pecuniary gain for convictions that he will not receive in an acquittal. Arizona Courts do not agree with, nor abide by, this Supreme Court’s relevant holdings. In Arizona, judges do receive additional pay for convictions and sentences from the Private Prison Corporations. Accordingly, subject-matter jurisdiction is sine qua non to the following questions.

1. Does the state court have subject-matter jurisdiction in a trial wherein the judge of which shall receive extrajudicially paid pecuniary gain (“Graft”) for a conviction and/or sentence that the judge will not receive for an acquittal or mistrial? a) If not, is such a conviction and sentence void and/or voidable? b) Does the fact that the Graft is paid by and/or laundered through a Pension Fund diminish the effect of the Graft on the subject-matter jurisdiction?

2. Must Petitioner’s conviction and sentence be vacated due to the fact the judge in Petitioner’s trial shall [and/or is] receive Graft for the conviction and sentence - pursuant to Turney v. Ohio. 273 U.S. 510 (1927) and Ward v. Village of Monroeville. 409 U.S. 57 (1972)? a) If so, is Petitioner considered a “slave” since he is now held as a collateralized commodity by an Arizona confederate corporation even though Petitioner has not been “duly convicted” in a court of competent jurisdiction as required by the Thirteenth Amendment and Article III of the Constitution? b) If so, should Petitioner be “Emancipated” pursuant to the Emancipation Proclamation and/or the Thirteenth Amendment and/or this Supreme Court’s holding in U.S. v. Amistad, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 (1841)?