I do not think there should be any mistake. The Justice Department (The Supreme Court) works for “We the People.”“We the People” have via OUR legislature enacted health care reform. We are at liberty to do this because we have secured the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. We did this to promote the general Welfare. Those powers are BOTH enumerated in our PREAMBLE to the Constitution. Because some of you cannot read I quote:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We the People” went further to REITERATE and INSTITUTIONALIZE our intentions with:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (Article. I. Section. 8. Paragraph 9).
The Conservatives among our Judiciary want to invoke Judicial Review to negate the WILL of “We the People.” This will not FLY!!!!!
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
c/o Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Why would anyone doing “honorable work”[1] need or even ask for immunity?
Dear Justices,
"He goes along, pretends to be a gentleman, pretends to be accommodative, pretends to be seriously committed to the law, and turns around, sending people, beating up people, using violence to coerce and to literally defend power for the sake of defending power."[2] Is that why you do it, “power for the sake of defending power”?
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
Thursday, December 29, 2010
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
Voice mail (314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Constitutional Inviolable and Inalienable RIGHTS and thus The Strict Liability for the Deprivation of Rights
cc: file
Constitutional Inviolable and Inalienable RIGHTS
and thus
The Strict Liability for the Deprivation of Rights
Why would anyone doing “honorable work”[3] need or even ask for immunity?Immunity from prosecution both Criminal and Civil violates the Constitution for the United States of America’s supremacy, Article. VI. § 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" and the 1st Amendment’s provision: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“We the People” sought to establish basic Inviolable and Inalienable RIGHTS i.e., “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”[4] We had suffered under absolute Despotism the divine right of the King. “We the People” expressed this with The Declaration of Independence July 5, 1776:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
“We the People” then further defined and codified those Rights into a Constitution for the United States of America. “We the People” had suffered “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” We sought to define and Codified Inviolable and Inalienable Rights into the Constitution for the United State of America to avoid “a long train of abuses and usurpations”:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”[5]
Who in their RIGHT mind would guarantee a basic Inviolable and Inalienable Bill of Rights with out establishing Strict Liability for the Deprivation of those Rights via Due Process of Law as enforcement???
The authors of The Constitution for the United States of America assured the rights with the 1st Amendment’s provision: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Rights are not awarded for good behavior; rights are the warranty of what cannot be taken away by the State without cause as established by Due Process of Law.
Basic Liberty requires as an essential element the ability to defend oneself against usurpers and seek the protection of the laws. Absolute Immunity as illegally, unconstitutionally and criminally asserted by a royalist Supreme Court attempts to negate the STRICT LIBILTY assured by the Constitution for the United States of America’s Supremacy, Article. VI. § 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" and the 1st Amendment’s provision: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
With Absolute Immunity for“all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”[6] “There is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (malicious and corrupt) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”[7]
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
Thursday, December 29, 2010
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
Voice mail (314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
cc: file
[1] Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler issued the following statement on Wednesday in response to USA TODAY's investigation Updated 12/9/2010 11:11 AM “Justice in the balance”
[2] As seen in the New York Times MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, prime minister of Zimbabwe, on President Robert Mugabe
[3] Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler issued the following statement on Wednesday in response to USA TODAY's investigation Updated 12/9/2010 11:11 AM “Justice in the balance”
[4]Amendment IV to the Constitution for the United States of America.
[5]Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
We all assume, having sat through our required government and state classes in school, we live in a democracy of free and equal persons. We firmly believe the era of The Divine Right of Kings is OVER. We naively believe the law, the Constitution for the United States of America, protects our rights.
We do not have the Protection of the Laws as asserted by the founding Fathers:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”[1]
We do not have the protection of the laws as clearly asserted and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1803:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”[2]
We live under the Divine Right of the Judiciary to make law and their unconstitutional assertion of absolute immunity unrestrained by any law of nature or man. For illustration I submit the following example:
It is legal to own a Gun. When a person uses a gun to defend himself it is legal. When a person uses a gun without cause to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” that is criminal.
It is legal to be a Judge. When a person acting as a judge under color of law within the jurisdiction of the State makes a ruling in open court to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” after affording them due process of law and equal protection of the laws” that is legal. When a person in a judge’s robes sitting behind a judge’s bench under color of law within the State’s jurisdiction makes a ruling to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” without due process of law or denies the equal protection of the laws that is criminal[3].
One criminal uses a gun to illegally “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” the second criminal uses his office and the State’s authority under color of law to illegally “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” BOTH are criminals, both have stolen from their victims!!!!!!!! BOTH their victims are entitled to the protection of “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … the supreme Law of the Land”[4] and the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[5]”
Try to hold a Judge, a prosecutor, the Police or any person “governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” to account under color of law. It is impossible in the United States of America today. We have abandoned the essence of Civilization, The Protection of the Laws.
I say again “We the People” are entitled to The Protection of the Laws. It is self-evident to any sane person:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. ”[6]
Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy of USA TODAY / USATODAY.com have found “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws” is rarely if ever the case in their research for Federal prosecutors series:
“USA TODAY found a pattern of "serious, glaring misconduct," said Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman, an expert on misconduct by prosecutors. "It's systemic now, and … the system is not able to control this type of behavior. There is no accountability."[7]
He and Alexander Bunin, the chief federal public defender in Albany, N.Y., called the newspaper's findings "the tip of the iceberg" because many more cases are tainted by misconduct than are found.”
Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy of USA TODAY / USATODAY.com assert that Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales. I would assert that Judges do too. In fact I would go further and assert that “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[8] do too. I would assert that by their very nature “all persons” are subject to human fallibility. Human fallibility by definition generates the certainty of negligence, malice and corruption unavoidably in some cases.
Yet, “Federal prosecutors who violate laws or cut corners to win convictions face almost no risk of losing their ability to practice law, USA TODAY has found.
“Congress in 1998 gave the state regulators who oversee all of the nation's lawyers the authority to discipline U.S. Justice Department prosecutors when they violate laws or state ethics rules. Those regulators have the power to suspend and disbar lawyers.
To find out how often that happens, USA TODAY reviewed bar records and state court filings nationwide, and also searched for hundreds of prosecutors' names in a national databank of disciplinary actions maintained by the American Bar Association. It found only six prosecutors who were disciplined since 1997.”
The self-regulators maintain the conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to rights via their assertion:
“One reason disciplinary actions are rare is regulators may find that the violations were not deliberate. "Many violations found by the courts are not malicious evil wrongdoing," says Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, an association of state disciplinary officials. "People can lose their judgment in the heat of battle.[9]"”
I would dispute the actions were “not deliberate” and “not malicious evil wrongdoing”. But assuming that they were for a moment… the actions were at a bare minimum criminal negligence.
Negligence, emotionalism (in the heat of battle), malice and corruption are unacceptable. To some extent they are unavoidable in any broad based human interaction, but they cannot be tolerated openly or we as a society are destine to FAIL.
“We the People” are paying our public servants to function per our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[10] Whoever subjects us to the deprivation of any “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[11] IS CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY LIABLE under the Criminal Code, “Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983 A Civil Action for Deprivation of rights under color of law.
If we are to have our rights there has to be “strict liability.” Ignorance or the lack of a guilty mind is no excuse. No one can be allowed to operate a tricycle, a motor vehicle, a gun or MORE importantly a judicial system recklessly without regard. Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse") or a lack mens rea(Latin for "guilty mind") is just and excuse for the conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to rights. . Again IT IS SELF-EVIDENT:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”[12]
“Justice officials told USA TODAY that a federal law known as the Privacy Act, enacted in 1974, bars them from releasing any details, even when the problems have been widely publicized. Instead, it produces anonymous annual reports without any identifying details, even genders, of the prosecutors involved.
"Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."”
This is "the tip of the iceberg" being consumed by “a black hole” and COMBINED results are unseen “because many more cases are tainted by misconduct than are found.”
I have the evidence. It goes further, Jeep v. United States of America[13]. I have FIRST HAND knowledge I have been fighting this for SEVEN years. I have endured over seven years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[14], two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.
I was arrested and held to answer TWO infamous charges without any probable cause in flagrant violation of the 4th[15]and 5th[16] Amendment’s protections. The evidence of the fraud, the mens rea, and the conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference is undeniable and undisputed. This all happened in State Court where I made timely objections and appeals. I then took it to the Federal Courts under the 1st[17] and 14th Amendment’s protection:
I have FIRST HAND knowledge; The lack of accountability has established an ongoing conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to rights. This criminal conspiracy against rights[18] includes Judges, Prosecuting attorneys, the police and any “persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of their judicial process.”[19] They all have the Divine Right of Kings to act with absolute immunity from:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”[20]
This is an enormous criminal conspiracy; they have been operating with “absolute immunity”[21] for YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
We do not have a civilized country. "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."[22]We have no protection of the laws, the essence of civilization. We live under the divine right of the Judiciary at the discretion of the Judges, the Prosecutors, the Police and any “persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of their judicial process.”
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
Voice mail (314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
cc: file
[1]Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
[15]Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[16]Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment i.e., probable cause.
[17]Amendment I “the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Democracy - Federalism And The Divine right of Kings is the controlling issue in America today. "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde is not often known for his commentary on Government, but in this case he hits the nail on the head. We Americans have always been cursed with the decadence of the myth of American Exceptionalism. We have with our decadence and conceit unrestrained always assumed American’s knew better than the rest of the world.
We do not have the essence of civilization the protection of the laws:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
We live under the divine right of the Judiciary, with their self-asserted and self-sustaining grant of absolute immunity from the deprivations of our constitutionally guaranteed “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[1]
This started with the assertion ofAmerican Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalismrefers to the opinion that the United States is qualitatively different, better, than other nations. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation",[2] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional."[3] The term "American exceptionalism" itself was first used by members of the American Communist Party in the 1920s, in reference to their belief that "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions, America might for a long while avoid the crisis that must eventually befall every capitalist society."[4]
The American Communist Party was right, we have never had to live up to our press clippings, God’s own shining “City upon the Hill”[5]. It was never the City it was the Hill, “thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions, America has for a long too avoided the crisis.” Our crisis is not Free-Enterprise v Communism though. Our crisis is a fomenting moral crisis.
In spite of the unfortunate reference to “three fifths of all other Persons” in our constitution, our forefathers in the majority were advocates of democratic principles, they intended the Constitution to be strict uncompromising egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire policies. However, given the assertion of democracy, there was a contingent among them, the Federalist that were afraid to relinquish absolute power, The Divine right of Kings. The Federalist had contempt for the masses. The Federalists, in the person of Alexander Hamilton, were largely contented with control of the money supply[6] via the Federal Bank. But they did extract their progeny. The progeny of the Federalist’s contempt as it was written and as it has evolved are The Electoral College, States Sovereignty, The Supreme Court and the original election[7] of Senators. These factions sought to institutionalize this distain for “We the People.” The Federalist thought “We the People” could not be trusted with REAL power. There had to be a buffer between the masses and REAL power.
Now the election of Senators was changed with the 17th Amendment. But and this is a very BIG BUT, we are still subject to their contempt today with the Electoral College, State Sovereignty, and Supreme Court. And as a result to this day we still have the Electoral College. The Electoral College most recently gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. State Sovereignty gave us the Civil War, Jim Crow Law and currently Jane Crow Law. The Supreme Court has given us 100 years of Separate and Unequal, under Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and Liberty of Contract, the depression, under Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) and currently the Divine Right of Kings, absolute power via absolute immunity (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”).
The stupidity of the Electoral College can only be viewed in hindsight. Where would we be WITHOUT George W. Bush? No Afghanistan War? No Iraq War? No Bush era tax cuts? I mean the Bush era tax cuts did so much to avert the Bush era mortgage defaults, the Bush era automotive bankruptcies and the Bush era recession, RIGHT?????????
When the concept of States Rights was first conceived it could be more easily likened to the United Nations than to the results it has empowered. Fans of the United States of America, in 1776, thought the unification of States (Nations) was a good thing. The Europeans had been warring amongst themselves for centuries. The Idea of unifying themselves under one flag was appealing if untenable in Europe circa 1776. States Rights in the young United States of America went astray and allowed Slavery to blossom and institutionalize itself within a minority faction of country while the rest of the country and the world was abolishing Slavery[8]. The result was the Civil War.
The Supreme Court via there self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination estsablished their negligent, malicious and corrupt assertion of Absolute Immunity. The Supreme Court via there usurped Divine Right of Kings, absolute power via absolute immunity to make law has created Separate and unequal under Plessy, Integrated and unequal under Brown, Liberty of Contract under Lochner and the “Crime Control Model[9]” instead “Due Process of Law Model[10]” under Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”in our Current Justice System.
The current Issue of Democracy – Federalism
And
The Divine right of Kings
We do not have the Protection of the Laws as asserted by “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”[11] We live under the Divine Right of the Judiciary to make law and their unconstitutional assertion of absolute immunity originally for themselves[12] and then with “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[13] and under their authority.
It is legal to own a Gun. When a person uses a gun to defend himself it is legal. When a person uses a gun without cause to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” that is criminal.
It is legal to be a Judge. When a person acting as a judge under color of law within the jurisdiction of the State makes a ruling in open court to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” after affording them due process of law and equal protection of the laws” that is legal. When a person in a judge’s robes sitting behind a judge’s bench under color of law within the State’s jurisdiction makes a ruling to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” without due process of law or denies the equal protection of the laws that is criminal[14].
One criminal uses a gun to illegally “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” the second criminal uses his office and the State’s authority to illegally “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” BOTH are criminals, both have stolen from their victims!!!!!!!! BOTH victims are entitled to the protection of “Constitution… the supreme Law of the Land”[15] and the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[16]”
“We the People” are entitled to The Protection of the Laws. It is self-evident to any sane person:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
BUT, and this is a very big BUT, Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy of USA TODAY / USATODAY.com have found that is rarely if ever the case in their research for Federal prosecutors series:
“USA TODAY found a pattern of "serious, glaring misconduct," said Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman, an expert on misconduct by prosecutors. "It's systemic now, and … the system is not able to control this type of behavior. There is no accountability."[17]
He and Alexander Bunin, the chief federal public defender in Albany, N.Y., called the newspaper's findings "the tip of the iceberg" because many more cases are tainted by misconduct than are found.
Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy of USA TODAY / USATODAY.com assert out that Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales. I would assert that Judges do too. In fact I would go further and assert that “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[18] do too. I would assert that by their very nature “all persons” are subject to human fallibility. Human fallibility by definition generates the certainty of negligence, malice and corruption unavoidably in some cases.
Yet, “Federal prosecutors who violate laws or cut corners to win convictions face almost no risk of losing their ability to practice law, USA TODAY has found.
Congress in 1998 gave the state regulators who oversee all of the nation's lawyers the authority to discipline U.S. Justice Department prosecutors when they violate laws or state ethics rules. Those regulators have the power to suspend and disbar lawyers.
To find out how often that happens, USA TODAY reviewed bar records and state court filings nationwide, and also searched for hundreds of prosecutors' names in a national databank of disciplinary actions maintained by the American Bar Association. It found only six prosecutors who were disciplined since 1997.”
The self-regulators maintain the conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to rights via their assertion:
“One reason disciplinary actions are rare is regulators may find that the violations were not deliberate. "Many violations found by the courts are not malicious evil wrongdoing," says Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, an association of state disciplinary officials. "People can lose their judgment in the heat of battle.[19]"”
I would dispute the actions were “not deliberate” and “not malicious evil wrongdoing”. But assuming that they were for a moment… the actions were at a bare minimum criminal negligence. Negligence, emotionalism, malice and corruption, all unavoidable in any broad based human interaction, but they cannot be tolerated openly or we as a society are destine to FAIL.
“We the People” are paying our public servants to function per our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[20] Whoever subjects us to the deprivation of any “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[21] IS CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY LIABLE under the Criminal Code “Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983 A Civil Action for Deprivation of rights under color of law.
If we are to have our rights there has to be “strict liability.” Ignorance or the lack of a guilty mind is no excuse. Just like any other the careless person; no one can be allowed to operate a horse, a motor vehicle, or MORE importantly a judicial system recklessly without regard. Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse") or a lack mens rea(Latin for "guilty mind") is just and excuse for the conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to rights. . Again IT IS SELF-EVIDENT:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
“Justice officials told USA TODAY that a federal law known as the Privacy Act, enacted in 1974, bars them from releasing any details, even when the problems have been widely publicized. Instead, it produces anonymous annual reports without any identifying details, even genders, of the prosecutors involved.
"Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."”
This is “a black hole” and the "the tip of the iceberg" COMBINED “because many more cases are tainted by misconduct than are found.” I have the evidence that it goes further, Jeep v. United States of America[22]. I have been fighting this for SEVEN years. I have endured over seven years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[23], two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America. I would knowingly assert that the lack of accountability has established an ongoing conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to rights. This conspiracy against rights[24] includes Judges, defense attorneys and any “persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[25] that have been able to operate with “absolute immunity”[26] for YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
[2] Lipset, Seymour Martin, American Exceptionalism, pp. 17-19 (1996)
[3] de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America (New York: Langley, 1840), part 2, page 36: "The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no other democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one."
[4]Dworkin, Ronald W. (1996). The Rise of the Imperial Self. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN0-8476-8219-6.
[6] Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (23 February 1744 – 19 September 1812) was the founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty
[7]“Article I, Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature”
[8] The Somersett's case in 1772 that emancipated slaves in England, helped launch the movement to abolish slavery. Pennsylvania passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later 1848.
[9] “The Limits of the Criminal Sanction” by Herbert L. Packer, Stanford University Press. ã 1968
[10] “The Limits of the Criminal Sanction” by Herbert L. Packer, Stanford University Press. ã 1968
[11]Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
