In effort to enforce Crime Victims rights, I was compelled to dig in further on the constitutional sources for Equal Protection under the Law, because the State Courts in New Jersey refrained from forwarding a probable cause finding in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1581 – Peonage; obstructing enforcement to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey and also they failed to forward the Complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice, so essentially the finding is in limbo as the Federal Court takes position that it does not have to deal with the finding unless the complaint is brought into its Court by the U.S. Department of Justice contrary to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 and 4.
Thus it appears that the Federal Court points its finger at the U.S. DOJ when it comes to this Complaint , and since communication with the U.S. DOJ was opened, it appears that the U.S. DOJ position is that if the Complaint is not in the U.S. District Court or Superior Court of the District of Columbia then it has not obligation to acknowledge entitlement to Federal Crime Victims-Witness rights or Benefits if the probable cause finding was essentially not made by a federal Judge which is contrary to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 and 4 and 18 U.S.C. 3041 .
Thus it appears I am being denied Equal Protection, Equal Benefits of all laws and proceedings and Equality under the Due Process Clause. Since Due process covers procedure, it is clear that New Jersey’s failure to forward the 18 U.S. Code § 1581 – Peonage; obstructing enforcement probable cause finding that such would constitute a Due Process and Equal Protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I also consider that conduct as Obstruction within the meaning of section (b) of 18 U.S. Code § 1581 – Peonage; obstructing enforcement. Section (b) states: Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).
Because I am dealing with the Federal Government on this issue, I cannot rely on the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not apply to the Federal Government, so through my research I have learned that there are other clauses within the Constitution of the United States that are suppose to have the same effect as what is summarized into the Fourteenth Amendment as Equal Protection under the Law and Equality, which is all relevant since I am not being treated on an equal footing with other Crime Victims who are Victims of a violation of Federal Law. Thus I came across another great law review titled Equal Protection Outside the Clause Chester James Antiea, Mr. Antiea provides that:
Equality under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment Since there is no equal protection clause binding upon the Federal Government, the basic right of equals to equality must be secured under the Fifth Amendment due process clause.
Mr. Chief Justice Taft in 1921 said that “the due process clause … of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s right of life, liberty and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold.” s In 1937 Mr. Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Supreme Court, said in a tax case, “we assume that discrimination, if gross enough, is equivalent to confiscation and subject under the Fifth Amendment to challenge and annulment.”‘
However, the Court has at times suggested that the Fifth Amendment “provides no guaranty against discriminatory legislation by Congress.” 5 It is suggested that such statements are inaccurate. For instance, at the next term of court following this, the latest of such statements, Mr. Chief Justice Stone clearly implied that congressional legislation may be so discriminatory as to violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Again this was intimated the following year by Mr. Justice Roberts.7
Then, in Korematsu v. United States in 1945, the majority of the Court definitely suggested that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment contains a limitation upon congressional classification,” and in the same case Mr. Justice Murphy was emphatic that racial discrimination under the federal law deprived “all those within its scope of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.”9
The Supreme Court’s Petrillo opinion further indicates that the Fifth Amendment contains all the demands of equality found in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth.”0 And, the following year, 1948, the Court, although not specifically referring to the Fifth Amendment, indicated very positively that equal protection is “a part of the public policy of the United States.”
In this case, Hurd v. Hodge, the Court stated that it would violate this policy “to permit federal courts in the Nation’s capital to exercise general equity powers to compel action denied the states where such action has been held to be violative of the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.'”‘ Other federal courts have provided further assurance that equal protection is guaranteed under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
One court states: “It seems reasonably clear that the due process of law provision of the Fifth Amendment is broad enough in its scope and purpose to include the ‘equal protection of the laws’ which no state may deny to any person under the provisions of the Fourteenth.’ ‘ – Another federal court, speaking of alleged discrimination by the federal government, has added, “every citizen is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.”13 Equality of treatment by the federal government and freedom from discrimination and unreasonable classification is insisted upon by the federal courts, especially in the selection of grand and petit juries.
Here a federal court states: “A violation of the [due process] clause occurs if there is a systematic or arbitrary exclusion of, or a discrimination between, persons of a particular race.”1’ When in 1948 a United States attorney used nineteen of his twenty peremptory challenges to excuse all nineteen Negroes on the jury panel, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia admitted that due process under the Fifth would be violated if there were systematic exclusion from the jury list, but in a deplorable 5 decision, no unconstitutional unfairness could be detected by the majority of the court.16 And, in 1950, in a case involving alleged discrimination in educational opportunities in the District, the same Court of Appeals recognized the due process clause’s demand for equality and even applied, from equal protection clause case law, the ‘separate but equal’ concept.'”
“It is settled,” observes one writer, “that in the District of Columbia the Fifth Amendment implies equal protection of the laws.” ” Surely the right of equals to equality of treatment is so basic to the American tradition and the democratic thesis that it must be deemed “fundamental” and protected against unreasonable and discriminatory treatment by the federal government. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is the proper constitutional sword for the judicial arm in holding Congress and the national administration to the requirements of equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, guarantees equal protection, and by its terms it restricts only the states—not the federal government. But the Supreme Court has construed the Fourteenth Amendment to have inserted an equal protection understanding into the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 215–18 (1995). – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1637502.html#sthash.LyF7HXls.dpuf