Thursday, December 30, 2010

Why would anyone doing “honorable work”[1] need or even ask for immunity?


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: 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