No. 09-571 Title: Harry F. Connick v. John Thompson
The issue in No. 09-571 is a simple one. Eliminate 'ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY." 'ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" is a judge made law that has no place in a free society of equal persons. No one can operate in a society of free and equal persons with immunity.
“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)
The protection of the law in this case, if the prosecutors had knowingly withheld exculpable evidence is unquestioned. The remedy Mr. Thompson’s 1st Amendment Right:
“Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
All cost and damages would have been recoupable from the “Government” authority.
If the prosecutors just “failed” to provide the exculpable evidence is there a culpability issue? I would hold that there is. We have to be able to hold our “Government” employees to strict liability with strict scrutiny. Fundamental Human Civil Rights protected by the rule of law are the Fundamentals of civilization. Without a secure foundation within Due Process of Law, the civilization fails in its purpose to secure equally for all parties the protection of the laws..
But I have to warn you; the Justice System has already lost its credibility. The realization has not yet achieved critical mass, but it will. I sometimes feel as if I am the waif in the Old Danish parable "The Emperor's New Clothes". Am I the only one that can see it? The Judiciary has no credible claim to immunity from the rule of LAW. Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law by definition. Expediency does not legitimize malice and corruption. The mass realization of the naked truth will be devastating, if not lethal when it comes.
The Supreme Court is attempting to justify law breaking, as an essential primordial Common Law Precedent. Immunity as a benefit and/or a requisite for authority was thrown off with the Divine Right of Kings in our “Declaration of Independence.” I quote:
“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”
“We the People” went on to define those rights and establish Justice under the Rule of Law with our ConstitutionArticle III § 2 and Bill of Rights. With the emancipation of the slaves after the Civil War we ratified XIV Amendment. With the XIV Amendment§ 1 we established, as a Federal Function, the enforcement of rights, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
We ALL have the “equal protection of the laws”, NO ONE HAS IMMUNITY from the Law. Everyone has to abide by Due Process of Law. Due Process is a comprehensive substantive and procedural protection for Rights.
That gets us to today’s problem, A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Opposed to Immunity, Jeep v. United State of America. Judges today are lawbreakers and criminals by their own acknowledgement and assertion. I quote from the Supreme Court precedent “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the Rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.)Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)Page 386 U. S. 554” (Non-italic parenthetical text added for clarity)
YOU admit, with YOUR hubris unrestrained, some of YOU are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for the greater good. The greater good is the denial of the Protection of the Laws, The Essence of Civil Liberty[3]. YOU, by YOUR own self aggrandizing assertion, need to be able to act without regard to very laws “We the People” have established to limit YOUR actions. YOU assert YOU need to be able to act “with independence and without fear of consequences.” YOU assert YOU need to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that “We the People” can or should do nothing to oppose YOU.
THAT IS INSANITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even if Immunity was not diametrically opposed to the Rule of Law, immunity conflicts with the ends of Justice. Immunity inserts an unknown into the search for the Truth, i.e., Due Process. No longer is Due Process exposing the “Truth.” The “Truth” is hidden by the limitation of immunity. Immunity therefore defeats the search for the truth, the Ends of Justice. Guilt as we define it in our criminal Justice system requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Because the Jury does not know what incompetence, malice or corruption might be withheld from them by the grant of immunity to the Judges, Prosecutors and Police reasonable doubt cannot be overcome.
Now I would have to disagree with Lord Coke’s assertion in Floyd and Barker,[4] in that it is beyond the reach of mortal man:
"And Records are of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the Record itself"
Lord Coke assumed his Judges were Angels. History has proven that assumption wrong and thus overruled Lord Coke. Mortal man is corrupted by his own human fallibility; he cannot get high enough to reach the sublimity, that Coke basis his assertion on. We still need to strive toward it. BUT, until you open all the doors and eliminate all the immunity you cannot even aspire to Lord Coke’s dream of Sublime Verity. The Judges, Prosecutors and Police in creating the “Records” by their own pathetic admission need to be allowed incompetence, malice and corruption. There can be no attempt at Sublime Verity, where incompetence, malice and corruption are tolerated with absolute immunity. The current goal is not directed at “sublimity”. The “Records” are not even CLOSE to “sublimity”. The “Records” are therefore fraudulent as asserted by Lord Coke, the products of the incompetence, malice and corruption that is tolerated in their creation.
I like James Madison have to disagree “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[5]” The Judiciary’s grant of absolute immunity by the Grantor to itself the Grantee voids the obligation to control itself.
James Madison was referring to the “the Proper Checks and Balances” on government. Our Government is admittedly dysfunctional. The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the dysfunction in our Executive Branch; there is NO Check on one man’s uncorroborated “gut.” It was criminal when George Bush was doing it. He lied to the American Public. Now that he is out of office, he should be brought before the Bar of Justice and asked to explain the fraud.
The dysfunction in our Legislature has been created by earmarks, secret holds and the Filibuster. Our Legislature cannot even do its primary job, passing effective legislation; much less effectively assert their impeachment authority. The delays caused by earmarks, secret holds and the Filibuster put us decades behind the rest of the world as relates to Judicial Administration, Civil Rights and Health Care.
As regards the Legislature, the legislative process is said to be immune from Justice, the constitution and laws. Therefore the use of earmarks, secret holds and the Filibuster corrupts our representative system. Earmarks, secret holds and the Filibuster have no place in a Democratic System. The Supreme Court should rule them UN-constitutional as they are UN-democratic and eliminate them.
This can all be effectively blamed on immunity. For example, as relates to the executive. Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac. His pursuit and annihilation of the American Indian, in today’s world would have to be compared to Hitler. But Andrew Jackson is revered on our $20.00 bill. Justice needs to expose him and the fraud asserted by George Bush’s “gut”. Justice needs to hold itself and all the MEMBERS of government accountable to the constitution and laws.
Additionally, as I have put forward here, our Judiciary’s use of the Judge made law of absolute immunity for itself has enabled unchecked incompetence, malice and corruption for our Judges, our Prosecutors and our Police.
I have set a time limit of November 4, 2010. Your clerk’s office via Ms. Gail Johnson has referenced October 9, 2010. 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[6]. That is too long. I am at my wits END. I KNOW WHERE OF I SPEAK.
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.
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
enclosure
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World
Absolute Immunity = Absolute Power Absolute Corruption
Jeep v. United States of America
cc: file
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is not some clandestine underworld organization. The most corrupt organization in the world is supposed to be the beacon of justice for the United States of America if not the developed world. The United States of America is the largest of the developed democratic countries in the world. The United States of America dominates the world with our “dollar” and our “satellite TV.” With that distinction comes responsibility. The United States of America FAILS in its responsibilities to the rest of the world. The United States of America is not the beacon of liberty, democracy and justice that its propaganda portrays it to be. We do not have liberty, because there is no protection of the law for our rights. We do not live in a democracy every legislative act has to move through the oligarchy of the Senate where 'secret holds' and the filibuster trump our Democracy. We do not have access to Justice because our courts, by their own admission, are ruled by malicious, corrupt and incompetent tyrants with absolute sovereign impunity to rewrite the laws and protect their self-serving positions.
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is the United States of America’s Justice department.
Every organization of men is unavoidably corrupted by its imperfect humanity. There are no perfect human beings on this planet. Every organization is thus corrupted to some extent. What makes the United States of America’s Judiciary the most corrupt is that it has institutionalized and empowered its corruption by establishing and enforcing absolute immunity for itself and trickle down immunity for others. Absolute immunity proliferates reckless unaccountable impunity. The victims of this malicious, corrupt and incompetent immunity have no remedy short of violence. The Supreme Court has admitted as much themselves, “In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the 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.” (United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219)
I concur with Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Paper #78, when he asserted “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution,” that is true. The Judiciary needs to be independent of the TWO other branches of the Government. But the Judicial Power, the Executive Power and the Legislative Power all need to be submissive to Constitution as the GOVERNING Rule of Law. To understand fully how the founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton specifically saw the Judiciary it is important to again quote from the Federalist Paper #78:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative (judicial or executive) act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
The weakness of the Judiciary was evident in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515 515 (1832). In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515 515 (1832) the United States Supreme Court held that Cherokee Native Americans were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments which would infringe on the tribe's sovereignty. But President Andrew Jackson said that "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Because of the resistance of the Presidency to enforce the Law as declared by the Supreme Court, it was ignored. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 thus gave President Jackson the authority to negotiate removal treaties.
The result was The Trail of Tears, the relocation and movement of Native Americans, including many members of the Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw nations among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in the Western United States. The phrase originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831. Many Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their destinations, and many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee.
Imagine today if a President wanted to relocate, let’s say all the Muslims living on the east coast to federal lands in Oklahoma and did so by a tortuous trek across open country on foot with limited food supplies in all weather conditions. It would be unthinkable. But we have since evolved and are still I hope evolving.
In the rough and tumble world of the Colonial era the Legislative Power to tax and the Executive Power of the Army were seen to be overwhelming. But that is not the way it has evolved. With time we established the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the use of the Army for domestic law enforcement thus the executive has no advantage on the Judiciary. And the ability to Tax has no effect on the Judiciary’s Compensation “which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.[8]” But the Judiciary has the power to declare any Act of the Legislature or Order of the President void under the Constitution.
The Judiciary has now declared themselves above the law with absolute immunity. The Judiciary usurped power outside the tenor of their commission with their assertion of absolute immunity e.g., “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.” ((Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.), (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)) and (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
Bradley v. Fisher authorized the Judiciary to repeal the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY with the establishment of the Judge Made Law of Absolute Judicial Immunity, I again quote “a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense[9], and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law[10] upon its proper construction, no personal liability[11] to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 352
Judges admit, with their hubris unrestrained, some of them are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for the greater good. The greater good is the denial of the Protection of the Laws, The Essence of Civil Liberty[12]. Judges, by their own self aggrandizing assertion, need to be able to act without regard to very laws “We the People” have established to limit their actions. Judges assert they need to be able to act “with independence and without fear of consequences,” to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that “We the People” can or should do nothing to oppose them. That is INSANITY!!!
The Rule of Law stands above the Judicial Power. I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America Article III Section 2 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” To remove that limitation with absolute immunity and put the Judicial Power above the Rule of the Constitution is unconscionable. To put anyone above the constitution is unconscionable. Alexander Hamilton had it right in his assertion of the Rights of “We the People.”
“It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince… It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, (We) the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.”
We the People surrender NOTHING!!!
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is aided and abetted by one of its oversight authorities, the second most corrupt organization in the world, The United States Legislature. We do not have a Democratic Legislature as we profess to the world and ourselves. The United States Legislature is controlled by the United States Senate and the Senate hides its corruption behind its’ supposed purpose, a democratic institution. The Senate as design and intended in the United States Constitution is supposed to be a representative democratic institution albeit without a true 1-to-1 representative proportionality. But that is not how it has evolved. The evolution of the legislature has been corrupted by an oligarchy’s ability to control the United States Senate with the oligarchy’s self-serving antiquated Senate rules that establish and maintain 'secret holds' and the filibuster.
The United States of America is supposed to be a constitutional government “of the people, by the people, for the people[13].“ As such we are a government based on the Rule of Law as established by “We the People” in our Constitution. The Government of the United States should be a government of laws, and not of men. “We the People” are governed by our Constitution that establishes the Rule of Law; we are not ruled by the will of a King or an oligarchy. Any and all immunity from the Rule of Law is by definition antithetical to the Rule of Law. Constitutional Government is based on the Rule of Law. Immunity from the Rule of Law is contrary to the manifest tenor of a Constitution “of the people, by the people, for the people[14].“
“We the People” need to take back the United States Senate from the oligarchy of special interests and reign in the United States Supreme Court’s absolute sovereign impunity to once again make it a Government “of the people, by the people, for the people[15].“
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Absolute Immunity = Absolute Power
Absolute Corruption
“Absolute Immunity” enables “Absolute Power,” that leads to “Absolute Corruption”. The Supreme Court starting with Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall) 335 (1871[16]) created “Absolute Immunity.” That led to Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) “Absolute Immunity” specifically as regards our Constitution and laws, Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights[17]. Because of Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) a judge cannot be held liable for violating a citizen’s Constitutional Rights. That led Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)“Absolute Immunity” for a Prosecuting Attorney. Because of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) a prosecuting attorney cannot be held liable for violating the Constitution and laws in the prosecution or presentation of evidence in trial. A prosecuting attorney can knowingly prosecute a false charge and knowingly present false evidence and he/she cannot be held liable for violating a citizen’s Constitutional Rights. That led to Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)“Absolute Immunity” that authorized “Absolute Power”. Because of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) a judge cannot be held liable for violating the laws of nature and literally dehumanizing a citizen. That led to Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) “Absolute Corruption” for the police as regards perjury. The Police have absolute immunity from the charge of perjury. The Police can knowingly perjure themselves on the stand to corruptly convict a citizen and the Police cannot be held liable for violating the Constitution and laws.
Why? “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.[18]” Are we 5 times as bad? Are our streets 5 times as safe? Or have our Rights been taken away? We no longer have the protection of the Bill of Rights or the laws we have created to protect ourselves, there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY, everyone has ABSOLUTE IMPUNNITY:
I read an article a couple of days ago "Prosecutors' conduct can tip justice scales[22]." They are doing a series “A USA TODAY investigation: Misconduct at the Justice Department” they think they have found the tip of an iceberg. I have to disagree; I was again reading in Discovery Magazine about gaseous “Black Holes” I think that would be a better analogy. The gaseous “Black Holes” appear as clouds of swirling gas millions, if not billions of miles in diameter. These gaseous “Black Holes” are purported to be the origins of galaxies. They swirl and condense and SUCK everything in that even approaches, light included. I liken that to the current grant of absolute immunity in our Justice Department today. Immunity is an enormous problem; it is swirling about sucking everything in, corrupting EVERYTHING. Immunity has made our Justice Department “The Most Corrupt Organization in the World.”
We are there Absolute Corruption
“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.[23]”
I am worn out; the 7-year long battle of attrition has nearly defeated me. I am filing this petition as a pro se petitioner, a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. My CONSTITUTIONAL rights are fully vested and have been since my birth, July 18, 1956, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America. Now I realize you see your job as DENYING every possible petition that you get as your MAIN job. That essentially is the problem with America today; we have no protection for our rights. We do not have the Protection of the Laws. We have people like yourselves that would prefer to see the slow creep of corruption consume the good rather than do your job, defend the constitution and stand up to the malice and corruption and fight for the RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
I admit this is an imperfect attempt. I am human. You could find grounds to deny this petition because of misspellling. You could find grounds to deny this petition because of bad form or a typographical error. I Can't say it has never happened. I am sure if you hold true to form, you will find some reason to look the other-way and cover up your ongoing criminal conspiracy, the denial of “We the People’s” rights privileges and immunities as secured by the constitution and laws.
But if you are truly diligent and concerned about defending “We the People”, via the Constitution please do something positive and fight the malice and corruption. It is gaining momentum. That being said I submit the following imperfect flawed human attempt to thwart the forces of evil, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in support of “We the People” in a cause of action opposed to Absolute Judicial Impunity.
I site Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) as precedent for the lack of professionalism in this petition. As I understand it, his petition was a handwritten petition from his jail cell. I am hopefully not that bad off, but I am an amateur. I do not have the professional nor clerical skill of an attorney to work with. Nor at this point do I have the will to try. I am indigent, as Gideon was, and have been made so by the denial of my rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws. I have been unable to find a lawyer with guts enough to take on the criminal, unconstitutional assertion of Judge made law, absolute impunity. Their fear is understandable because of the judicial history for malice, corruption, incompetence and intimidation.
Additionally I ask you to accept this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari per the United States Code of Law Title 28 § 2111 Harmless error:
“On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
For information only I include U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947[26].
The case has not even been considered based on its merits. The Judiciary has, without a petitioner’s remedial due process right to be heard on the corruption, malice, incompetence and intimidation, DENIED the petitioner’s inviolable Due Process Civil Right. To this point it has been asserted that the proposed allegation of corruption, malice, intimidation and incompetence would not make the declaration good. That is Sophistry of the highest order.
The assertion of absolute judicial immunity always goes back to Floyd v. Barker. The assertion in Floyd and Barker, 12 Co. Rep. 23, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (K. B. 1607) is NOT that judges are entitled to immunity. The decision in Floyd v. Barker asserts that the “Star Chamber” had no jurisdiction over the Common Law and Equity Judges. In the “Star Chamber” there was no protection of the law; a plaintiff had no rights. The “Star Chamber” claimed authority that it did not have. Lord Coke in Floyd v. Barker put the “Star Chamber” in its place. At the time there was no definitive constitution in place that defined and limited government, democratic constitutional government did not exist. By 1641 the “Star Chamber” had been completely discredited, it had become clear the “Star Chamber” was a corrupt political weapon of the privileged, not a court of Justice. The “Star Chamber” has since become a symbol for the misuse and abuse of power.
Furthermore in Floyd and Barker Lord Coke stated that the only conspiracy action that would lie against a Judge would be one perpetrated outside the court. I quote “subornation of witnesses, and false and malicious prosecutions, out of Court, to such that he knows will be indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful conspiracy.[27]” The Judges, defendants, Bennett, Colyer, Goeke, Jones and Jeep conspired outside the court, outside of procedural and substantive protection of Due Process[28]. It was “an unlawful conspiracy” and “coram non judice”[29] The Judges, defendants, Bennett, Colyer, Goeke, Jones and Jeep conspired outside the court, beyond even the extended yet defined limits of an ex parte order, to charge and punish the Petitioner Jeep with abuse, without the requisite “Probable Cause.” This was a criminal Judicial conspiracy to violate the petitioner’s 4th Amendment Right, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects… no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” and the petitioner’s right to the protection of the law, per statute “for good cause shown in the petition[30]”, there was NONE.
That was a conspiracy outside the court to defraud the petitioner. So I assert Floyd and Barker to establish judicial liability, not to deny it. Although my research on the subject is by no means authoritative I would also like to assert that Lord Coke would NEVER assert absolute immunity. Lord Coke was a staunch defender of the rule of law in the face of royal absolutism. I cannot imagine that he would assert Absolute Immunity for himself and or others.
The Justice branch has for too long used sophistry to cover up judicial culpability. The “Star Chamber” was set up to attempt the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Its scope and its procedures were never clearly defined. It degraded into a corrupt and malicious political tool and was ultimately discredited and disbanded. It was a failure, but the problem that instigated its creation did not go away.
In Floyd and Barker Lord Coke’s ruling from within the “Star Chamber” attempted to define its task and limit its jurisdiction. It was not that he believed that Judges could do no wrong. It was his belief that the only entity capable of calling a Judge’s action into question was the King himself. I quote “for the judges of the realm have the administration of justice, under the King[31], to all his subjects… they are only to make an account to God and the King[32] and not to any suggestion in the Star-Chamber.[33]” How does that now translate into democratic constitutional rule? We have no King. Who has the right and the OBLIGATION to oversee Judges in a democratic constitutional government of laws.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense 1776 answered that question: “But where, says some, is the King of America? I'll tell you… In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King; and there ought to be no other.[34]” “We the People” passed a law in 1871 the remedial statutory Civil Rights statute, § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 -- the forerunner of § 1983”:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
It clearly an unequivocalbly states the Kings/Laws intent. The Judges and the Justice Department need to enforce Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights per Article Article III. § 2. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”. The Sophistry asserted by the Judiciary is that they are answerable to NO Law they are immune.
I am herewith asking the court to reconsider their corrupt, malicious, incompetent and intimidating precedent of absolute immunity for judicial acts and the trickle down immunity it generates for others. Remove the sophism and the irony of the malice, corruption, intimidation and incompetence is unmistakable: those who are the guardians, the Judges, of the Constitution are themselves privileged to violate it with corrupt, malicious, incompetent and intimidating impunity.
“We the People,” as individual victims, should not be asked to bear the burden of irreparable injury and the prosecution for the criminal[35] denial of our inviolable rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws. “We the People” pay taxes to establish the government of “We the People” as defined by our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.
“We the People” have rights in this country. The denial of those rights is WELL DOCUMENTED as actionable at common law[36], constitutional law[37], criminal statutory law[38] and civil statutory law[39]:
“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.
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law… "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded...[40]"
The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
I have to ask as John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did in 1803: “Is it to be contended that the heads of departments[41] are not amenable to the laws of their country?
Whatever the practice on particular occasions may be, the theory of this principle will certainly never be maintained[42].
No act of the Legislature (, executive or judiciary) confers so extraordinary a privilege, nor can it derive countenance from the doctrines of the common law. After stating that personal injury from the King[43] to a subject is presumed to be impossible, Blackstone, Vol. III. p. 255, says… "but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the Crown without the intervention of its officers, for whom, the law, in matters of right, entertains no respect or delicacy, but furnishes various methods of detecting the errors and misconduct of those agents by whom the King has been deceived and induced to do a temporary injustice."” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 165
“We the People” have been “deceived and induced” with judicial sophistry to the “temporary injustice” for the full burden of liability for the corruption, malice, intimidation and incompetence of the Judiciary deceitful sophism of Judicial Absolute Immunity since 1871. This injustice has been perpetrated by a self-admitted corrupt, malicious and incompetent Justice Department over the Supremacy of the Constitution, the remedial statutory Civil Rights statute § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 -- the forerunner of § 1983 and common law of the “We the People.”
The sophism, purporting judicial absolute immunity, is based on the fallacy connecting immunity with the independence essential to the separation of powers. The separation of powers, does not require Judicial immunity. If it did the essence of civilization, The Protection of Laws, would be unattainable. That is obviously and irreconcilably, a self serving sophism.
The separation of powers is a model for the governance of democratic states. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. The branches are separated and independent of each other by Rule of Law. All the branches are ruled by and are subject to the Constitution as the paramount Rule of Law. All the branches operate under delegated authority derived from the Constitution, the rule of law. “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.[44]” Therefore when any of the branches of Government deny a citizen’s rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States their actions are criminal. Their actions should be adjudged void and compensation ought to be awarded to the injured party for redress of grievances per the First Amendment, Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights and Common Law.
Our Government is founded on our Constitution, Rule of Law. All of civilization is based on the Rule of Law. In monarchies the people surrender their will to the prerogative of the King in return for the King’s presumed benevolence and protection as the Rule of Law. In Democracies of free and equal persons we establish the rule of law through the agreed written Constitution establishing the limits and responsibilities of government as the Protection of the Law. To for go the Protection of the Law by allowing immunity from the law is to negate the intended purpose of Civilization. If in a monarchy the King does not provide protection and / or benevolency, the Protection of the Law, he or she is over thrown and replaced. In a democracy of free and equal persons, “We the People” have established Due Process of Law to secure the Protection of the Law.
The Essence of Civilization is the establishment of the Rule of Law in place of the inherent anarchy of the survival of the fittest or the yet to be sustainable benevolent dictatorship. Immunity from the Rule of Law as a requirement for departmental independence is a sophism that is antithetical to the essence of civilization, The Protection of the Laws.
Thomas Jefferson said it first and best:
“We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice[45]” (emphasis added) corruption, intimidation and incompetence.
Because of this sophistry and unmerited impunity, the Judges have for the last 140 years intimidated all who oppose them. One needs just look at the recurrent theme in the precedent. In Bradley v. Fisher, 137 Wall. 335 (1872) a Judge is allowed to nearly destroy an attorney’s livelihood with the malice, corrupt, incompetent and intimidating denial of Due Process of Law as affirmed by the Supreme Court precedent, acknowledging the bad act as a factual certainty. In Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) a Judge demands a Defense Attorney “be brought before him, without regard to decorum” and the United States Marshall Service, under color of law goes out and physically accosts their victim and literally drags him into court kicking and screaming, again as affirmed by the Supreme Court precedent, acknowledging the bad act as a factual certainty. Criminal intimidation is at the root of the judicial malice, corruption, incompetents and impunity.
Questions
I.Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law. The sophism that asserts Immunity from the Rule of Law as a requirement for the Constitutional Separation of Powers is inherently flawed in a democratic society of free and equal persons based on the Rule of Law and not of men. Will you the Supreme Court abolish Absolute Immunity and establish as the rule of precedent “Professional Good Faith Immunity” as the professional standard for all persons acting under color of law?
A.“Professional Good Faith Immunity” would protect the diligent, honest and competent good faith efforts of any person to be fair and unbiased under the Constitution and Laws, while providing a civil and criminal remedy for the victims, of malice, corruption incompetence and intimidation as required by common law[46], constitutional law[47], criminal statutory law[48] and civil statutory law[49].
II.Will you the Supreme Court disavow all Judge made law that is intrinsically contradictory to the overt expressed intent of “we the People” in the constitution and laws of the United States, e.g.:
A.Any precedent that circumvents the “expansive sweep[50]” and remedial intent of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 -- the forerunner of § 1983:
1."This act is remedial, and in aid of the preservation of human liberty and human rights. All statutes and constitutional provision authorizing such statutes are liberally and beneficently construed. It would be most strange and, in civilized law, monstrous, were this not the rule of interpretation… as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people.[51]"
2.Specifically enforce the reference to “Every person who, under color of any…” as it was clearly intended “Every person” no exceptions.
B.Any precedent that selectively denies and or selectively enforces the 14th Amendment’s protection, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?
1.Such as the denial of 14th Amendment’s protection in family law.
Damages
I assert RICO[52] protection for the ongoing criminal intimidation and denial of civil rights. As a result of the denial of the rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United Sates of America, I seek a redress of grievances from the United States of America per the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Supreme Court:
I.Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case # CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 32 year old 1978 DWI conviction[53].
II.Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III.Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV.Actual Damages in the amount of:
Fifty Million Dollars and No Cents-------------------------------------------- $50,000,000.00
V.Punitive damages. In the amount of:
One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents----------------------------- $100,000,000.00
I sent a copy of this petition via US mail, prepaid to:
Solicitor General of the United States
Room 5614, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday, August 09, 2010
Signature of Plaintiff
Dave@DGJeep.com
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
[1] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, “Opposed to Immunity” 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/).
[4]Floyd and Barker[4]. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I, In the Court of Star Chamber
[5] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788, James Madison
[7] 1. The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing." -- Spirit of Laws. Vol. I, page 186.
[8] United States Constitution Article III Section 1 Last Sentence.
[9] “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[10] “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
[11] “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility. Immunity is in fact a Title of Nobility in the terminology of Colonial Times and the Constitution of the United States of America
[19] “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[20] “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
[21] “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility. Immunity is in fact a Title of Nobility in the terminology of Colonial Times and the Constitution of the United States of America
[23] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788, James Madison
[24] For a complete list of the Defendants please see U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947
[26] 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/).
[29] Coram non judice, Latin for "not in the presence of a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding without a judge, with improper venue, or without jurisdiction.
[30] Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035
[31] Article III. § 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
[36] See The Commentaries on the 18th-century common law of England (and thus America) by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. Specifically Blackstone as quoted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
[41] The Supreme Court is the head of the Justice Department
[42] Over the assertion of the Supreme Court in 1803, the Supreme Court in 1871 with “Bradley” established ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY for the Judiciary.
[43]“In America THE CONSTITUTION IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other” paraphrasing Common Sense by Thomas Paine Published in 1776 challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy..” I would note that personal injury by the Constitution is IMPOSSIBLE in our democratic constitutional government, but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the Constitution without the intervention of its officers, for whom, the law, in matters of right, entertains no respect or delicacy, but furnishes various methods of detecting the errors and misconduct of those agents by whom the CONSTITUTION of the “We the People” have been deceived and induced to do a temporary injustice.
[44] The Federalist No. 78, The Judiciary Department, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton
[45] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[46] See The Commentaries on the 18th-century common law of England (and thus America) by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. Specifically Blackstone as quoted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
[51] Representative Shellabarger, in 1871, the author and manager of the bill in the House, explained in his introductory remarks the breadth of construction that the Act was to receive.
