The full text of the statute is here, cited by the New York State Attorney General in full in the Appellees' brief in Peters v. Neroni (appeal of the remand of my disciplinary case back into state court):
28 U.S.C. 1443 was enacted by the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Congress must derive its autority to enact statutes only and exclusively from the United States Constitution.
The enabling provision of the United States Constitution that was used to enact 28 U.S.C. 1443 was the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The full text of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment taken from the website of the U.S. Government is:
Every federal judge, including judges of federal districts court, appellate circuit courts and every justice of the U.S. Supreme Court are sworn to protect the United States Constitution.
The United States Constitution has a Supremacy Clause, its full text is taken from the transcript published on the website of the U.S. Government:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (that every judge and every attorney in the United States and in the sovereign states is sworn to uphold) state that the Supreme Law of the land is:
(1) The Constitution;
(2) the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
(3) all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States
Power to the federal judiciary is limited and delineated by Article III of the United States Constitution, see the full text of it here and below as a scan of the portion of Article III dealing with judicial power for your convenience:
Nowhere in the sections of Article III dealing with judicial power does the U.S. Constitution give judges power to make the law.
Thus, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution enumerating "the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" does not give power to federal courts to amend statutes through interpretation.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution vests the exclusive power to make law, or the legislative power, with the U.S. Congress:
The U.S. Congress enacted a removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1443:
Federal courts have no power, under the U.S. Constitution that every judge taking office is sworn to uphold, to change (amend) that statute.
The statute is clear and unambiguous. It does not contain any references to racial restrictions on removal of civil actions from state to federal courts.
Yet, the New York State Attorney General claims on behalf of the State of New York that "[i]t is well-established, however, that the phrase "any law providing for the equal rights of citizens" means "any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality", see the scan below from the September 15, 2014 Appellees' Brief in Peters v. Neroni:
Of course, there is no such language about equal rights "stated in terms of racial equality" in 28 U.S.C. 1443
And the New York State Attorney General, who is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution (same as I was as an attorney), must agree with me that holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution should not be followed by federal courts, because the New York State Attorney General must abide his own oath of office and, thus, must abide by the Supremacy Clause of the Article VI, the legislative power clause of the Article I, the Article III that does not give federal courts power to make the law (or amend the laws made by Congress through interpretation - as amendments must be enacted pursuant to Article I).
Yet, the New York State Attorney General, instead of abiding by his constitutional oath of office that he took in 2010, rejects my argument that it is the U.S. Constitution and not holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court or of any other lower federal court that control the analysis.
The New York State Attorney General reserves to me only a right to "dispute applicability of these precedents", which is simply irrelevant when the U.S. Supreme Court or any other court, in making such precedents, exceeded its judicial power granted to it by the Article III of the U.S. Constitution and instead usurped the legislative power granted by the U.S. Constitution under Article I Section I only to the U.S. Congress.
And watch the legal basis provided by the New York State Attorney General (Assistant Attorney General Andrew B. Ayers of counsel) on behalf of the State of New York that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution should not be followed and instead the U.S. Supreme Court holdings contrary to the Supremacy Clause should be followed:
Here is the signature page of the Appellees' Brief in Peters v Neroni showing the team of authors of this conclusory (not based on proof or arguments) statement:
If Andrew B. Ayers and his boss Eric T. Schneiderman under whose name Andrew B. Ayers has filed the brief would provide such an "analysis" in a law school final or on a bar exam, they would get a failing grade, because there is NO ANALYSIS at all.
Mr. Ayers did not care to explain WHY it was correct for the district court judge Norman Mordue to violate his own constittuional oath of office and to put the holding of a federal court ahead of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the restrictions on judicial power in Article III of that U.S. Constitution and the exclusive legislative power given only to the U.S. Congress in the Article I Section I of the U.S. Constitution.
And there is a simple reason why Mr. Ayers has failed to provide such an explanation - because there is no plausible explanation for a judge to violate his constitutional oath of office, as there is no plausible explanation for Mr. Ayers to violate his own oath of office in arguing for affirming unconstitutional decision of Judge Mordue made in excess of his authority, through amendment of a U.S. Statute by interpretation.
If Eric T. Schneiderman and his team cannot even maintain the oath of office Eric T. Schneiderman took as a New York State Attorney General in 2010, and consider it their duty to violate their oath of office to preserve the status quo for their clients, even if it involves upholding an unconstitutional decision of a judge, Eric T. Schneiderman has no moral right to run for office and be elected to office again - as he tries to do now.
New York taxpayers do not need to pay public servants who only take public office and take the oath of office as a perfunctory token of power, with no intention to follow their oath of office, and with every intention to violate it in order to serve powers that be.
If I am white, it can be implied from Mr. Schneiderman's and Mr. Ayers' "reading" of 28 USC 1443 (or, rather, imagining what is not there), that I can be discriminated for any other reason - such as a political prosecution because:
- I am Russian and Russia has always been treated and presented as an enemy;
- I am of foreign origin, speak with an accent, and in this country for many people, including many judges, speaking with an accent is an equivalent of being dumb, incompetent or uneducated, and judges hate to have me "teach them about the law" when I make objections about THEIR law with my foreign accent;
- I am married to and continuously represent a disbarred civil rights attorney,
- I am myself a civil rights attorney involved in multiple civil rights lawsuits on behalf of clients raising sensitive issues as to misconduct of government officials;
- I have investigated multiple judges and prosecutors for misconduct through FOIL requests;
- I have filed numerous DOCUMENTED complaints dealing with prosecutorial misconduct and judicial misconduct with respective authorities;
- I have filed complaints about misconduct of high-standing politically connected attorneys with connections to the judiciary; and
- I am a vocal critic of judicial misconduct and misconduct in the attorney disciplinary bodies of the New York State since 2009?
Do you want a New York State Attorney General who understands "equal justice for all" only the way it suits his high-ranking and politically connected clients who hold in their hands Mr. Schneiderman's OWN LICENSE AND LIVELIHOOD? A fearless protector of New Yorkers, indeed.