Project End Corruption worldwide
The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity Does Not Bar a Suit for Mandamus Sovereign immunity is no defense to an action for mandamus. Sovereign immunity has never been considered a bar to mandamus actions seeking to compel public officials to perform the duties imposed upon them in their official capacities. Haneke v. Secretary of HEW, 535 F2c. 1291, 1296 n. 14 (D. C. Cir. 1976); Anselmo v. King, 902 F. Supp. 273, 277 (D. D. C. 1995); Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 899, 109 S. Ct. 2722, 2734- 2735, 101 L. Ed. 2d. 749 (1988); Moosup Trucking Co., Inc. v. John A. MacDonald StateHighway Commissioner,5 Conn. Sup. 114, 117 (1937)
The rule that a state is immune from suit in its own courts does not apply to an action of mandamus brought to compel apublic officer to perform public duties see, Cox v. Aiken,
The second circuit court judge of New York and Attorney General office knows that court has jurisdiction over defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arose under federal law, namely, the Federal TortClaims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679. To Protect the minority’s religious belief and defend them against the chain of Religious and political discrimination by the United State District Attorneys of Connecticut.
Mr. James Madison Bill of Right is open example by reading the Religious Act H.R 2679, and “Terry Shivo V. State” which are contributing pain in my life like other steps in the chain of Religious Discrimination by privileged members of Humanity. It’s Governors and Attorney Generals responsibility to protect innocent people from public and government corruption not just in America but all around the globe to help hope seeking struggling human beings for human fealty.