28 U.S.C. Section 1443 states as follows:
“Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.”
On its face, this statute is color-blind, makes no reference to race, and is absolute. In practical application, the Federal Courts have rendered this statute all but nugatory. Anyone who wishes to exercise civil rights removal in the United States today must be prepared to fight to overturn one of the oddest relics of Jim Crow segregation imaginable: Civil Rights actions are still, in large part, said to be available only to cure RACIAL discrimination, and all other kinds of civil rights abuse are largely left immune, literally immunized, and untouched by the Constitution, unlimited by any constraints imposed by fundamental rights or human dignity.
Litigants interested in denials of equal access to the courts and denial of due process, or the existence of statutory economic classes, must ask the courts to analyze the 44 year old judicial construction and application of Civil Rights Removal (28 U.S.C. §§1443(1), 1447(d)) by application of the “strict scrutiny” test applicable all race-based schemes (even those called “benign”) and give that statute the full breadth and strength implicit in the plain language enacted by Congress. 28 U.S.C. §1443(1), a statute tracing its history back more than a hundred and thirty five years, as written, adopted, and codified by Congress into the positive law of the United States, ought to be one of the most powerful engines of civil rights enforcement under the constitution. The language of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) is inclusive, rather than exclusive, but it was given an unbelievably narrow construction by the United States Supreme Court in 1966, from which the court has never retreated. I would submit, and urge all others to argue as well, whether pro se or assisted by counsel, that the racially unequal application of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) is an affront to all recent U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence since Regents of the UC v. Bakke in 1978, City of Richmond v. Croson in 1989, and Adarand v. Pena in 1995.
It is also time for the courts to allow removal so that all defendants in, for example, California eviction (U.D., unlawful detainer) cases following non-judicial foreclosures, will be able to put on evidence (as apparently ONLY the Defendants in Rachel v. Georgia have ever been allowed to do, and that in 1966) showing that all the non-racial or racially neutral criteria imposed on the invocation of 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1447(d) by the U.S. Supreme Court in Greenwood v. Peacock and Georgia v. Rachel do in fact apply to all proceedings, in that these statutes, not quite uniquely, but with discriminatory intent and effect creating disparate classes of litigants more draconian than most, are designed to obliterate the following fundamental Constitutional freedoms: (1) freedom from statutes impairing the obligations of contract, (2) freedom to petition for redress of grievances, (3) freedom from deprivation of private property for public use without just compensation, (4) freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, (5) the right to jury trial in all cases where the matter in controversy exceeds $25.00.
So great is the weight of state statutes forbidding any contest against non-judicial foreclosure prior to effecting an illegal taking of property under color of law that even freedom of speech itself is suppressed.
Litigants in non-judicial foreclosure and forcible eviction cases should be prepared to appeal many a U.S. District Court’s denial of their right to present evidence showing (1) that the outcome of all non-judicial foreclosures and all Forcible Eviction cases following the same is uniformly fixed and predetermined, simultaneously by California statutes, court rules and practices having the force or effect of law relating to non-judicial foreclosure and post-foreclosure eviction, as well as other official customs, practices, and policies of the state of California relating to foreclosure and eviction, and having the force and effect of written law, (2) that the statutes fixing and predetermining these non-judicial and judicial outcomes constitute an infringement of the rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom of contract under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (if construed in a racially neutral manner), (3) that the statutes, court rules, and state customs, practices, and policies relating to non-judicial deprivation of property uniformly deny due process of law and give unbridled and hence unconstitutional discretion to arbitrary and capricious judicial decisions which all tend uniformly to the suppression of constitutional rights to private contractual formation and equality of access to the Courts, ownership of private property, and individual freedom to offer and give evidence under both 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982.
Likewise, the statutory racial language of 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 themselves must be subjected to strict scrutiny and this court should order it stricken, because there can be no compelling governmental interest in maintaining that:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,”
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
When the consequence of these laws being so written, in archaic, Reconstruction-era, Race-Related concerns, is to allow states to create, and to allow the Courts to uphold and enforce non-racial categories of disfavored persons, such as Respondents in forcible eviction and unlawful detainer cases, who must always lose, there is a great need for removal to Federal Court to preserve these liberties, and racial discrimination in the enforcement of civil rights is counter to all legitimate purposes of government. When people are reduced to conditions of involuntary servitude by private economic manipulation and judicial strategems implemented in a matter subservient to those private special interests, the people are reduced to slavery. It matters little that this is done by the stroke of judge’s and lawyers’ pens and word processors rather by than forcible capture and de jure enslavement, the philosophy of equality and the existence of a free society are equally imperiled.