DO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT EXIST ANYMORE AT UNIVERSITIES?? The judge refused to give me a rest

DO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT EXIST ANYMORE AT UNIVERSITIES?? The judge refused to give me a restraining order on the Dean of Students at New Mexico Highlands University. I cited case laws and told the court how he deprived me of my constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, peaceful assembly on public property, right to remain silent, right to make my own health choices and right to an attorney. I had no lawyer present or witnesses while he had his lawyer who claims that University laws supersede constitutional laws. The judge did not recognize my constitutional rights being violated and did not give me a restraining order because I was not in serious danger or threat of harm. I explained that my emotional health is being affected by the harassment from the dean and how he put university restrictions on my without proper due process. After telling the Board of Regents, The Vice President, The President and the Dean himself several times that I would not like to speak to the Dean and even police officers told me that I don’t have to speak to him and can speak to someone else, the Dean still sends me emails saying I have to meet with him and comply with sanctions. I refuse to be dragged into another meeting as to be bullied and harassed by this man alone and therefore should have a restraining order because my grades are being affected as well as other emotional trauma. He failed to cross examine the men who have raped and abused me as I brought in text messages and pictures of my injuries from an assault. His lawyer made it clear that he is the Dean and is responsible for disciplinary actions. I said that is false because due process requires an impartial judge and a jury which should have been other University members during the hearing. I cited case laws to prove the University is not higher than constitutional law. Please let me know if I’m wrong. The dean is trying to get rid of me after he found out that I was exposing things going on around campus and bringing forth an audio recording of a witness testifying to a prostitution ring on campus, which he made me delete during a meeting with my father present. He sent letters threatening suspension/expulsion if I did not go to his meeting because I refuse to go to a mental health therapist of the University’s choice. He is doing that in an attempt to silence me while he is covering up the corruption on campus. I am restricted from the library, computer labs and anywhere on campus without permission except for my classes at specific times. I don’t think this is even legal. I just contacted the ACLU and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and believe it is time to get a lawyer after not being able to represent myself in court. The judge said that this legal stuff I brought forward is not accurate and that this is a University matter only to be handled by the University. Please tell me this applies to Universities and they are my individual rights: Tinker v. Des Moines I retain all of my constitutional rights while I am a student, and thus I have a right to a proper hearing with more than just the biased Dean of Students, a Dean who has a personal issue with me and will not let anyone else handle the situation, even though his superiors, such as the University President, could have easily handled the matter. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803) It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. U.S. v. Lee,106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it.” “It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.” Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) “The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"… "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law”. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of “the Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come [410 U.S. 211] within the meaning of the term “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one’s intellect, interests, tastes, and personality. These are rights protected by the First Amendment and, in my view, they are absolute, permitting of no exceptions. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. l; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508 (dissent); Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684, 697 (concurring); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293 (Black, J., concurring, in which I joined). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is one facet of this constitutional right. The right to remain silent as respects one’s own beliefs, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 196-199, is protected by the First and the Fifth. Third is the freedom to care for one’s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf. These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of “compelling state interest.” We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164, that walking, strolling, and wandering “are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them.” As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29: “There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will [410 U.S. 214] and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will.” New Mexico Statute Code §30-3A-2: As provided in §30-3A-2, harassment consists of: A person (defendant) knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct;The pattern of conduct is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person;The pattern of conduct serves no lawful purpose; andThe conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. tag #nmhu -- source link

More pics about