No. 24-6444

Samuel T. Whatley, II, et al. v. City of North Charleston, South Carolina, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-02-03
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights election-interference federal-jurisdiction freedom-of-information governmental-immunity search-and-seizure
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-04-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and individual governmental employees are immune from federal law prosecutions and sanctions when implementing misconduct or infringing upon individual rights

Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Are intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees immune to federal law prosecutions, lawsuits, and sanction regulations of contempt against these governmental entities, and or other punishable justifications, that do not have the immunity protections, if the intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees implemented misconduct, and or infringed upon an individual ’s [We the People] RIGHTS {also known as Freedoms and Liberties )? FollowUp Question: Are the governmental entities immune and allowed to violate federal laws, and or policy regulations, which are guided by the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and U.S. Constitution? 2. If an intergovernmental agency, organization, or individual governmental employee accepts federal funding, also known as federal money, if suspected and or discovered to possibly abuse, misuse, defraud, and or questionable usage of the federal money, does that constitute federal jurisdiction and punishable federal prosecution as a treasonous action against the oath sworn by those governmental entities? 3. Does the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and U.S. Constitution protect all individuals of this great, and awesome nation of nations, we call the United States of America, from illegal, and misconduct of wrongful search and seizure protections against rogue intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees that violate, and infringe upon individual freedoms that pursuit of liberty, and peaceful happiness? Follow-Up Question: Are intergovernmental entities immune to transparency under the Freedom of Information Act? 4. Can intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees falsify a search warrant to engage in an unlawful search and seizure, that had no evidence of a crime, and that the intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees used a personal interest of conflict to engage in election interference against individuals that were intergovernmental election candidates? 5. Can an intergovernmental entity use unlawful practices to weaponize law enforcement as election interference against an intergovernmental election candidate? 6. Do Sunshine laws apply to intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees that often are suspected, or operate with illegal, and questionable searches, and seizures, against individuals because of personal conflicts of interest? 7. Does preventing, and or denying, the right to jury trial, whereas intergovernmental agencies, organizations, and or individual governmental employees had violated the rights of the individual, which conflicts with the guarantees of the right to jury trial, as those individual guarantees, are written within the founding words of the Federal Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence? 2

Docket Entries

2025-07-31
Case considered closed.
2025-04-07
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 28, 2025, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2025-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/4/2025.
2024-12-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 5, 2025)

Attorneys

Samuel T. Whatley, II, et al.
Samuel T. Whatley II — Petitioner
Samuel T. Whatley II — Petitioner