Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571 We have NO enforceable RIGHTS in America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We have NO enforceable RIGHTS in America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Thompson expressed frustration about 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."

I REPEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy
USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605


Dear Mr. Heath and Mr. McCoy,
I appreciate your reference to the 'black hole' of American Law enforcement.  You appear to have been stymied to some extent by the 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.""[1]
I would dispute the actions were "not deliberate" and "not malicious evil wrongdoing".  But assuming that they were, I would still hold that the actions were at a bare minimum criminal negligence.  And because of the criminal nature "The Privacy Act of 1974 5 U.S.C. § 552a" does not pertain.  If that were the case USA Today could not print headlines regarding other CRIMES.  "We the People" are paying our public servants to function per our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[2]  Whoever subjects us to the deprivation of any "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[3] IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE under the Criminal Code "Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law."
"We the People" in our "Constitution… the supreme Law of the Land"[4] sought to establish "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."  Everybody knows "This Constitution… shall be the supreme Law of the Land."[5] Ignorantia juris non excusat ("Ignorance, No Defense" Hammond v. Madera 859, F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1988)) these people are PAID professionals.  We can hold that a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued"[6] but our Public Servants can not be held to competency as regards our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[7]?
The Supreme Court Justices had some issue at the hearing (Connick v. Thompson (09-571)), my understanding, as regards how much training should be enough.  I reply whatever it takes.  We hold ALL professionals to a standard of competency why should our professional public servants be any different?
That is and has been a prescription for a conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights.  We as a society cannot allow anyone to go about with a deliberate indifference to rights, much less a broadly based conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights.  Deliberate indifference to rights lets lose a bull in a china shop! 
Indifference to rights has SEVERAL times been acknowledged by the courts as problematic,  "Deliberate Indifference", Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900, 1489, 1496, "Conscious Indifference to Incompetence" Grandstaff v.City of Borger 767 F.2d 161, 170 (5th Circuit 1985),  "Vicarious Liability, No Plausible Deniability", Cunningham v Gates 989 F.Supp 1262, 1269 (C.D. Cal 1997).
Now I know the Supreme Court has never held for a conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights under color of law.  The Supreme Court the Guardians of our "Constitution… the supreme Law of the Land"[8] have in effect said that the King, I mean the Government, can do no wrong. 

That is ABSURD.

Anything administered by humans is by the unavoidable frailty of human nature susceptible to incompetence, negligence, malice and corruption, to DENY ALL of human history. 
As you know may or may not know, I have contacted you before, I have been pursuing my "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9] with Jeep v. United States of America.[10]  I am asking for your HELP??????????????

Immunity is diametrically opposed to
"This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land."[11]

I can't imagine how the Supreme Court can with a straight face assert that "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process."[12] is REQUIRED or even compatible with "This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land."[13]
I agree with William O. Douglas's dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967  @ Page 386 U. S. 565-566:

 "The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." [Footnote 2/5[14]] Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:

"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of.
While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged." Dawkins v. Lord Paulet[15], (1869) L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting)."

It is time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.

Saturday, November 13, 2010
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

David G. Jeep

enclosure

cc:  file


[4] Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
[5] Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
[6] "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
[8]Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
[10] 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] Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
[13] Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788
[14]  [Footnote 2/5] Historically, judicial immunity was a corollary to that theory. Since the King could do no wrong, the judges, his delegates for dispensing justice, "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co.Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng.Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607). Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. @ 74 U. S. 539.
[15]  Dawkins v. Lord Paulet was case where Lord Paulet had indisputably slandered Dawkins to his superiors in a military communication.  Lord Paulet asserted immunity for all military communication in time of war.


--
Thanks in advance


To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316