Civil due process

[Bruce Sloane]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[11] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[12]

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[13]

Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever.[i] A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.

The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.[14]


11^ Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)
12^ Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970)
13^ Eldridge v. Williams, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)
14^ Jess Bravin and Kris Maher (June 8, 2009). "Justices Set New Standard for Recusals". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-06-09.

[NonEntity]

(04-14-2012 08:53 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  ...has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case.

Fox, meet hen house!

- NonE

[cadman777]

I was hoping to find a number of people posting their court submissions, which showed their developed arguments, which cited relevant authority proving what is a valid "claim"/"cause of action" (and what isn't valid).

This would provide us people of the several-states with a good beginning point to creating their own paperwork for our own particular struggles against the administrative machinery.

Is there a forum topic of this kind anywhere in here?

... Chris

[LivingHuman]

You seem to think that people with no facts or that are simply irrational can be engaged in meaningful argument.

If I'm not mistaken, the technique put forward here is to keep the burden of proof on those making the complaint.

[NonEntity]

(12-04-2012 07:10 AM)cadman777 Wrote:  This would provide us people of the several-states with a good beginning point to creating their own paperwork for our own particular struggles against the administrative machinery.

In other words, you want to learn how to most effectively lick the boots of your oppressors? Is that it?

Goodness sakes alive, you certainly wouldn't want to actually ask them for evidence of where they have acquired jurisdiction. Nope. Wouldn't want to do that. Best to agree (kiss butt) and beg leniency. Sounds like a plan to me. :rolleyes:

- NonE

[Andy]

(12-04-2012 07:10 AM)cadman777 Wrote:  I was hoping to find a number of people posting their court submissions, which showed their developed arguments, which cited relevant authority proving what is a valid "claim"/"cause of action" (and what isn't valid).

This would provide us people of the several-states with a good beginning point to creating their own paperwork for our own particular struggles against the administrative machinery.

Is there a forum topic of this kind anywhere in here?

... Chris

Google search: Valid cause of action

Google search of marcstevens.net for: cause of action

Many cites of valid cause of action here on Marc's Standing Cross-reference