SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543
NOTICE OF WRIT OF HABEAS AND AFFADAVIT OF DANIEL MULLIGAN ASKING A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: WHEN even THE PRESIDENT LOSES “DUE PROCESS” DO ALL CITIZENS LOSE rights?
After Rome’s greatest senator and orator was beheaded it was reported how evil and brutal they had become. “According to the tradition of Marius and Sulla, both of whom had displayed the heads of their enemies in the Forum. Cicero was the only victim of the proscriptions who was displayed in that manner.” According to Cassius Dio (in a story often mistakenly attributed to Plutarch), Antony’s wife Fulvia took Cicero’s head, pulled out his tongue, and jabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin in final revenge against Cicero’s power of speech.” See Wikipedia and or Cassius Dio, Roman History 47.8.4
In Florida, for the past 30 years, I believe the same hate against Dan Mulligan and now against President Donald Trump as there was against Cicero some 2000 years ago. In spite of the vile hatred against the office of the President by various elite nobility ones, Daniel Mulligan still believes running for the office of the President may provide the accused Mulligan a proper notice of Writ of Habeas Corpus and the rights and immunities to “contract.” Mulligan could then leave Florida as a free man and Citizen.
Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the “Contracts Clause”) In Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) it explains, ex post facto Law and contracts as noted
“In a contest between two individuals claiming under an act of a legislature, the Court cannot inquire into the motives which actuated the members of that legislature. If the legislature might constitutionally pass such an act; if the act be clothed with all the requisite forms of a law, a court, sitting as a court of law, cannot sustain a suit between individuals founded on the allegation that the act is a nullity in consequence of the impure motives which influenced certain members of the legislature which passed the law.”…..”A party to a contract cannot pronounce its own deed invalid, although that party be a sovereign State. A grant is a contract executed. A law annulling conveyances is unconstitutional because it is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.”