No. 19-5971

Darlene Schmidt v. Gary R. Herbert, Governor of Utah

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-09-17
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeals appeals-court appeals-procedure cause-of-action civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-interpretation corporate-governance dismissal due-process facts judicial-bias judicial-jurisdiction jurisdiction misrepresentation standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-10-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does appeals court's dismissal finding 2 reliefs but no known cause show the appeals court is misrepresenting the facts?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.Does appeals court’s dismissal finding 2 reliefs but no known cause show the appeals court is misrepresenting the facts? 2.Did the appeals court establish jurisdiction over the subject matter when claiming my complaint accurately makes “two vague requests for relief” but fails to reference its following cause [“who then determines the owner's life style, pursuit of happiness, desired health status, elimination of pain and suffering, service safety, reasonable costs, contracting according to the desires of the person of interest identified or (on) the property ownership conveyance instrument’? 3.Do the 151 complaint words, show the appeals court failed to establish jurisdiction over me by their bias and intent to refuse to search for any cause of action? 4.Did the appeals court establish jurisdiction over corporate VP Herbert, appellee, impersonating a state governor? 5.Did the replacement appeals judges have jurisdiction to strike the original assigned judges’ order that I may argue my motion giving appellee standing at the appeals level and without any opposition? 6.Did the replacement appeals judges have jurisdiction to strike the original assigned judges’ order that I may argue my motion that judges recuse who have ruled upon Utah’s Amendment 8 establishing a marriage between a man and a woman, our equity court’s common law in Art 3.2? 7.Does the replacement appeals judge’s dismissal show failure to read my briefs or become knowledgeable of the facts before adjudicating? 8.Did the replacement appeals judges copy district court’s adjudication without reading any documents prior to ruling to follow the district brethren, i.e., every priesthood leader is an island and no island interferes with the law of another island? 9.Does the replacement appeals judges order come directly from district court’s order instead of the briefs submitted at the appeals level? 10.Did district court’s order calling my complaint and motions a brief, as done at the appeals level, trigger appeals shadow members to act as the supreme court instead of an appeals court to deter appealing to the real supreme court? 11.Does the district court’s dismissal show a predetermined decision had been rendered instead of adjudication upon the subject matter when my motions were mooted to not have to be read? € LG 12. Does our ratified constitution reference her republic form of government as a corporation? 13. Did Dartmouth v Woodward authorize application of “corporation” to government? 14. Does the existence of a CORPORATE seat of government, Act of 1871, instead of a republic form of government seat, show 2 governments, 2 constitutions, and 2 presidents govern America, where the shadow government is calling more shots than the republic government? 15. Did the Act of 1871’s corporate seat of government recognize and accommodate a foreign government operating upon American soil without jurisdiction to do so making the corporate seat repugnant to the constitution? 16. Did Amendment 17 inform states that “ratification is state consent to give up her senate suffrage?” : 17. Did A. 17 conquer all 50 states in 1913 by causing states to believe they no longer have their senate suffrage given to a 2°4 senate house elected by the people? 18. Has there been any reference to: “We the people of the united congress”? 19. Is A. 17 repugnant to our constitution? 20. Does the word “and” in the preamble’s secured blessings of liberty inseparably connect the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity so that what is done to one is automatically done to the other? : 21. Does Roe V Wade contain a blanket presidential pardon to murder and ; go unpunished? 22. Did Roe V Wade come from a different constitution instead of our ratified US constitution? 23. Did the Roe court establish jurisdiction over the subject matter and both parties prior to ruling? 24. Does Roe show a shadow corporate government’s is operating inside our republic form of government w

Docket Entries

2019-10-21
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2019-10-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.
2019-09-25
Waiver of right of respondent Gary Herbert to respond filed.
2019-09-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 17, 2019)

Attorneys

Darlene Schmidt
Darlene Schmidt — Petitioner
Gary Herbert
Tyler GreenUtah Solicitor General, Respondent