The Supreme Court Ruling is an
Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 4:09:37 PM
We have NO enforceable RIGHTS in America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To bereave a man of life, says he or by violence to confiscate his estate, without Due Process of Law would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without the Constitutionally assured Democratic Due Process Right of Redress of Grievances, we might as well be living in the jungle, survival of the fittest. Let's all get our Guns and shoot it out. The government can at anytime literally MURDER us. The government can STEAL our CHILDREN, steal our HOMES… our LIVES. THEY CAN DO ANYTHING. THEY CAN TAKE EVERYTHING!!!! They can degrade, dehumanize, demoralize us with "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."
"We the People" HAVE NO REDRESS!
If a Judge asserts absolute immunity, he "hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial… false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court… amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy." "To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without (Due Process of Law) accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation."
The unconstitutional GRANT of Nobility i.e., ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY before and out of court is an unconstitutional, criminal, self-serving, ministerial rule, by and for the Judiciary i.e., "extrajudicial " and an "unlawful Conspiracy."
"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... 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."
This is NOT "good Behavior."
This is an impeachable OFFENCE!
The Supreme Court as the Judiciary's governing authority, in a massive, malicious, corrupt, incompetent, unconstitutional and CRIMINAL-CONSPIRACY against rights, dismissed Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-57 via their CRIMINALLY unconstitutional ministerial rule. Mr. Thompson said in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in his case, Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571:
"If I'd spilled hot coffee on myself, I could have sued the person who served me the coffee," he said. "But I can't sue the prosecutors who nearly murdered me."
We can hold that a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued" but our Public Servants can not be held to any of our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." We CAN NOT hold the Government responsible for stealing our children, our homes or taking our LIVES without regard to "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." This is a MASSIVE all consuming malicious, corrupt and incompetent conspiracy against rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"We the People" are being criminally denied our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary. "We the People" in our FIRST Amendment to the constitution thought to ASSURE OURSELVES the right to a redress of grievances:
Amendment I (ratified June 21, 1788)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In 1803 just after, the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution (1788), as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Supreme Court assured and asserted our right of redress; "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 137 137 (1803) 5 U.S. 163)
The Black Robed Royalist Judiciary in a MASSIVE, MALICIOUS CORRUPT and INCOMPETENT conspiracy against rights has said:
"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" That is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL denial of "We the People's" constitutionally GUARANTEED RIGHT to a "redress of grievances."
We can sue a 4 year old; we can sue McDonalds for serving too hot coffee. But we can not sue our Government for murder, attempted murder, theft, false imprisonment, false and malicious Persecutions or "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" "We the People" established DUE PROCESS of LAW, constitutionally for the ENFORCEMENT of our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." The Supreme Court has STOLEN that protection via the DENIAL of "Private prosecution" of our RIGHTS to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
This is INSANITY!!!!! A MASSIVE, CRIMINAL, CORRUPT, MALICIOUS, and INCOMPETENT CONSPIRACY against RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Government takes our children, our home, our life via the deprivation of rights we have no REDRESS of GRIEVANCES for the deprivation.
The CRIMINAL, MALICIOUS, CORRUPT, INCOMPETENT, BLACK-ROBED, ROYALIST conspiracy against rights has MINISTERIALLY awarded themselves an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Title of Nobility i.e., "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"
"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." Our so-called Supreme Court has to learn HUMILITY!!!!! I say impeach the five sitting Justices (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts) that supported the Criminal, Unconstitutional MINISTERIAL Rule in Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-57!!!!!!!!!!!!! "We the People" have RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!! "We the People" surrender NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as we let them make the RULES without regard to our rights we are noting more than chattel.
IMPEACH the BASTARDS!
We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process."-->(Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America (10-1947), Jeep v Jones (07-11115))
Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 4:09:37 PM 2011 03-30-11 Connick v Thompson, No 09-571 ROUND 2 REV 01.doc
 Impeachment, you want to say it has never been done before, there is ALWAYS A FIRST TIME. I remind you that in 1776 our intention was Democratic Rule NOT an oligarchy!!!! With "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." ANYBODY can present false information… lie from your spouse to the traffic cops. The Prosecuting Attorneys can withhold exculpable material at will to convince the jury to convict. WE HAVE NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS!!!
 The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. " "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
 Redress was first establish in the Magna Carta § 61 (1215) and then incorporated into the 1st Amendment to Our Constitution in 1791 and 1788 respectively.
 "Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence." Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, New York Times, New York edition, Published: October 28, 2010, A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A24 By Alan Feuer
 Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
 In the era of Jane Crow where Fathers have little or no rights in family disputes the judiciary is obviously overrun by Fatherless bastards
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316