(II) FACTS ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES - AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual

service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in

jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,

without just compensation.

Corpus Delicti or Injured Party, Right to Face Accuser,

Evidence must be present to be charged and tried by any

court, officer or tribunal. The due process clauses of the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the petitioner

against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable

doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with

which he is charged.

The court and its officers are acting under colorable law

And pursuing against petitioner's 4th Amendment rights to

cause him abject loss and fear and to lose quality of life

and the benefit of privacy, property, and protection under

the United States Constitution.

 Despite petitioner's attempt to evoke his rights as per the

United States Constitution via the submission of motions to

the court and oral invocation, his protests have been

threatened with contempt of court and petitioner's motions

charged as being a barrage.

Substantive due process (SDP for short) is an aspect of

American jurisprudence under the Due Process Clause,

involving substantive unenumerated rights. SDP is to be

distinguished from procedural due process, which involves

procedural unenumerated rights.

The term "substantive due process," is commonly used in

two ways: first to identify a particular line of case law,

and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial

review under the Due Process Clause. SDP involves liberty-

based due process challenges which seek certain outcomes

instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects;

in such cases, the Supreme Court recognizes a

constitutionally based "liberty" which then renders laws

seeking to limit said "liberty" either unenforceable or

limited in scope.

Any application of the Bill of Rights to State action, as

opposed to federal action, is a form of substantive due

process.

Most rights included in the Bill of Rights are

Incorporated against the States through the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Today, the Court focuses on three types of rights under

substantive due process in the Fourteenth Amendment, which

originated in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304

U.S. 144 (1938).

Those three types of rights are:

The first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (e.g. the

Eight Amendment); restrictions on the political process

(e.g. the rights of voting, association, and free speech);

and the rights of “discrete and insular minorities.”

The Court usually looks first to see if there is a

fundamental right, by examining if the right can be found

deeply rooted in American history and traditions. Where the

right is not a fundamental right, the court applies a

rational basis test: if the violation of the right can be

rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then

the law is held valid. If the court establishes that the

right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies

strict scrutiny. This test inquires into whether there is a

compelling state interest being furthered by the violation

of the right, and whether the law in question is narrowly

tailored to address the state interest.

The enumerated due process right - In case a person is

deprived of liberty by a process that conflicts with some

provision of the Constitution, then the Due Process Clause

normally prescribes the remedy: restoration of that person's

liberty.

The Supreme Court held in 1967 that “we cannot leave to the

States the formulation of the authoritative ... remedies

designed to protect people from infractions by the States of

federally guaranteed rights.”

Procedural due process, In the United States, criminal

prosecutions and civil cases are generally governed by

explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of

Rights. Most of these rights have been incorporated under

the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Among those rights

is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which

has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that

statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure

that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.

 This protection extends to all government proceedings

that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether

civil or criminal in nature. In criminal cases, many of

these due process protections overlap with procedural

protections provided by the Eight Amendment to the United

States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures

that

Protect innocent people from being executed, which would be

tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

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". 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.

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 be entitled

to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

"Identification 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."