Filed Claim in Federal Court

I celebrated nearly 250 years since the Declaration of Independence by filing a claim in April 2025 in Massachusetts Federal Court, requesting the Judiciary take a proactive role in affirming that anyone in possession of the Human Genome deserves due process.  It was dismissed for not being associated with an injury, but the meaning of our laws is to prevent injury.
Thanks for your past interest, Dorothy
 
The Claim:

This is an urgent request to the Court for two rulings:

1) Anyone in possession of the Human Genome deserves due process.

2) Everyone is obligated to uphold Human Life.

1. This is a petition to the Court seeking a ruling that anyone in possession of the Human Genome is entitled to due process so everyone becomes aware that prejudice is not an excuse for denial of inalienable rights, and to further rule that every person, including every government official, is obligated to uphold Human Life; it would be optimal to have officials explicitly swear to uphold Human Life to reinforce its priority, when swearing to uphold the Constitution.

2. Before the Judge allowed me to be seated on a jury, he asked me if I agreed to vote based on the statutes of our state if they were in conflict with my personal beliefs.  I did not hesitate to say, “Yes.”  The Judge carefully taught the statutes that were relevant to the case and sent a tape recording of his explanations into the Jury Room for reference. Without the instructions from the Judge, the members of the Jury would necessarily have voted their own beliefs.  Given that proper instruction is crucial to a fair trial, there is an even greater imperative for the Judiciary to teach the statutes accurately in order to prevent crime. 

3. The Declaration of Independence is the Defining Statute of the Union.  It acknowledges Human Rights as the raison d'être and immutable basis of the United States of America and constrains all voting whether on a jury, in Congress, on the Supreme Court, or for an elected official, to uphold Life as it also constrains all actions by the Union within our borders, on our borders and outside our borders.  All actions taken by the United States of America must maintain Human Rights to perpetuate the Union.

4. A majority vote does not have the power to override Human Rights as that vote would be in conflict with the Union.  A personal belief that the obligation to uphold Human Life falls outside one’s scope of responsibility does not justify voting against the self-evident rights acknowledged as belonging to all people by the Founders.  Therefore, this case asserts that the Jurisdiction of the Judiciary is a one-to-one mapping to Human Rights.  This is consistent with the Judiciary adhering to the mathematical concept of a topology connecting all people to their rights by ensuring that due process protects every person’s life from violence, even from self-inflicted violence.

5. Acknowledging the Courts are a topology which equitably upholds Human Rights sets a guideline for the jurisdiction the Judiciary has over Artificial Intelligence and AI’s obligation to distinguish proof from unsubstantiated beliefs.

6. This case asserts that Human Life is not a contract because we do not consciously choose to be born and at some point we must die, therefore the Courts do not have the option of non-intervention until asked in their duty to uphold Life, as this right is afforded equally to every person.  All Human Rights violations require action by the Judiciary.  If the Courts do not condemn violence and slavery, they condone it.

7. To reiterate, this is a request that the Judiciary, in order to prevent violence and slavery, rule that anyone in possession of the Human Genome is entitled to due process setting a clear limit on actions based on personal beliefs which conflict with Human Rights.  In order for the Judiciary to treat all people equally regarding the Law, the Judiciary must be a function applied to all people, spanning their various levels of abstract thought and different ways of dealing with their emotions and beliefs.

8. It is the responsibility of the Judiciary, given that the elements of our Union are persons who have been afforded the right to self-regulate consistent with upholding Human Life, to teach that inclusion in the set of people whose Human Rights are recognized and respected, cannot tolerate excluding others from this set, the First Amendment right to one’s personal beliefs notwithstanding.