Saturday, October 30, 2010

Justices of the Supreme Court Connick v. Thompson 09-571


Justices of the Supreme Court
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: Connick v. Thompson 09-571
       The Right of Redress of Grievances
       The “Jane Crow” era, Jeep v. United States of America

Dear Justices,
The issue in Connick is a simple one.  No one is omniscient.  The assumption of innocence is not a right it is an invincible maxim: "Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. - The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."  Any surprise or denial in the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence attempts to defeat the maxim.  Surprise, how can someone prove the negative when they are not sure of what the negative is?   Denial of exculpable evidence defeats the ends of Justice.  The ends of Justice requires affording the accused a fair chance to defend themselves.  How is an accused person suppose to defend themselves if they do not have all the evidence.  And if there is exculpable evidence, why is the prosecution persecuting the accused anyway?
That brings us to the REAL issue, the Right of Redress as guaranteed by the 1st AmendmentThe right of redress has for TOO long been denied Citizens of the United States of America. 
We can bail out the automaker’s to the tune of $75-$120+ billion[1].  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion[2].  We can stimulate the economy with $787 billion[3].  But we can not AFFORD to cover the negligence, malice and corruption of our “our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants”?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress: “If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”  It was assumed by the Barons, that the King, his chief justice (judges), his officials, or any of his servants might offend and there would need to be a right of redress. 
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution further establishesCongress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It was assumed by the Founding Fathers, the newy formed Government would from time to time screw up and be liable to the Citizen for a redress of grievances. 
The administration of Justice, a.k.a. Judicial Power per Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America is defined as: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties...”  Justice was important to the founding fathers.  The Declaration of Independence was large based on pursuit of Justice to over come “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[4]”.  James Madison just prior to the ratification of the Constitution in he Federalist No. 51 said: “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.[5]
In 1935 in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 the Supreme Court further explained.  “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none.”
Justice, per the Constitution requires the State to provide the accused with “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation [6]” via a warrant and ultimately the “presentment[7]” of the charges with “Due Process of Law[8]”. 
Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87 clearly requires the state to present it’s evidence to the accused prior to the trial.
Now granted this all makes things difficult for the Prosecution.  But, that is why they call it work instead of vacation.  To date “We the People” have determined our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” as the best way to avoid “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[9]
Due Process is not an ambush.   Surprise evidence has no place in the prosecution of the law under a democratically limited government.  Due Process is a search for the TRUTH.  In that search during that search the accused is to be granted access to all the evidence. 
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) gave the Judges immunity from any liability for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, e.g., Jim Crow laws.  They have been utilizing that lack of restraint with the “Jane Crow” discrimination in Family Law.  Their JOB is to administer Justice per rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.  They should NEVER have been given IMMUNITY from the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
I have endured 7 years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration, two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America[10].  I quote from Lord Acton (1887), but I agree 110%: "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge (our Government) Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.[11]"
We can bail everybody out.  But, we can not AFFORD to cover the negligence, the malice, and the corruption of our “our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants”? 
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeep v. United States of America is a flagrant case of Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police negligence, malice and corruption.  It is time to over rule Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).  Judges, Prosecutors and Police work for “We the People.”  It is time “We the People” had our rights per 1st Amendment to the Constitution “Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Justice REQUIRES it and “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.
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.




David G. Jeep

cc:  Adam Liptak
       The New York Times
       1627 I St NW, Ste 700
       Washington, DC  20006-4007
       file


[2]Bailout Plan: $2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand” The New York Times, By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON Published: February 10, 2009
[3]Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval” The New York Times, A version of this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009, on page A15 of the New York edition.
[4] The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
[5] The Federalist No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788 by James Madison
[6] 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.
[7] Amendment V, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
[8] Amendment V, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
[9] The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
[10] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[11] Lord Acton in a letter to ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.  Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364