Constitutional Law 101
Monday, April 25, 2011, 5:12:51 PM
I was a 30-year Construction Industry veteran, by way of the school of hard knocks construction contract law, when this all started. I just wanted my Due Process rights. I was refused REPEATEDLY over the polite insistence of my attorney and myself after my funds ran out. My only remedy after four years was my First Amendment “right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That was 7 ½ years ago (2,731 days). I have suffered the criminal[3] kidnapping of my son, 411 days of illegal incarceration[4] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle for the First Amendment right of “redress of grievances,” Jeep v. United States of America.[5]
The need for Justice within the parameters of the group is instinctual and virtually undeniable for any sentient individual. A credible system of Justice is vital to the long-term union of sentient individuals. Governments are formed to establish Justice for the individual as a member of the union. The first Governments gave Supreme Power for Justice to the King. “We the People” found that system to be too arbitrary and inequitable. After petition for a redress of grievances, we declared ourselves independent of the King, July 4, 1776.
“We the People” in the preamble to OUR Constitution for the United States of America announce Justice as an essential if not THE principal aim of our Union:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We the People” in the Constitution for the United States of America (Article III. Section. 2,) establish “The judicial Power[6] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.” “We the People” at the same time established for ourselves “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America.”
“We the People” to enforce our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[7] established a Bill of Rights and the First Amendment states:
“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.”
The an essential right in the First Amendment is “the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be abridge by congressional law” “We the People” had some historical experience with Governments. The idea of assured ““rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” was first attempted with the Magna Carta in June of 1215 at Runnymede. The aristocracy, at the tip of a sword, forced the King, John of England, to grant them written and clearly defined “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by law” for the first time. One of these Rights was the security for the enforcement of all the others, to wit: “the right of redress for grievances” (Now noted as § 61 of the Magna Carta). I quote here:
“SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:
If we, our chief justice, 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, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, 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. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.”
Now that seems cumbersome I know, but you have to imagine that this right of redress predated a judiciary independent of the King. Therefore the need for an independent Justice minded majority of “twenty-five barons.”
What gives § 61 of the Magna Carta its current credibility is the extent to which King John went to nullify it. Clause 61 was the first serious challenge to John's authority as a ruling monarch. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London; Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it.
It was the death of King John (18-October-1216), which secured the future of the Magna Carta with the coronation of his 9-year-old son (18/19-October-1216). Henry III (1207–1272), under the regency of the popular William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. Henry's regents immediately declared their intention to rule by the Magna Carta, which they proceeded to do during Henry's minority. The England Henry III inherited, had undergone several drastic changes in the reign of his father. He spent much of his reign fighting the barons over the Magna Carta and the royal rights, and was eventually forced to submit even further by calling the first "parliament" in 1264.
Now the other thing that should be noted was that the King assumed liability for “our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants” nobody had immunity. Seems only fair since any of them could “offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security”
That brings us to the assertion of the Supreme Court FIVE[8] they too have renounced the right of redress as a "shameful and demeaning agreement.” They want to say that the Judiciary as hole is above and beyond any restraints on their INDEPENDENT authority. They want to continue to assert:
“This provision of the law (Immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences."[9]
I read the precedent, and it is enforced, a little differently
“This provision of the law (immunity and or limited liability for their actions) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge (although it should be noted that it protects the “malicious or corrupt judge” absolutely), but for the benefit of (“We the People” being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences" [10](non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).
One need only look at the Supreme Court FIVE’s[11] assertion of limited liability in its recent decision in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011. Mr. Thompson’s responses are MOST telling:
“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[12] me.”[13]
&
I point out the unencumbered Right of Redress in the First Amendment and the re-iteration of that protection in Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 of the current United States Code of Law.
It is today as it was in 1871:
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress"
(Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, March 31, 1871) [16]
"The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."
(Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, April 1, 1871)[17]
Do they think we are stupid? Maybe YOU are, “We the People” have tolerated the Judiciary’s assertion and proliferation of “Absolute Immunity[18]” for 140 years.
The Supreme Court’s authority is limited by the Constitution. If the Constitution asserts “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” it can be inferred that the Supreme Court cannot make any Judge made Laws “abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
“Absolute Immunity” as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" attempts to nullify the First Amendment: “the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
“Limited liability” as confirmed in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011 with its declared “difficult problems of proof”[19] for liability abridges and I would assert nullifies the First Amendment: “the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
I think I can speak for Mr. Thompson and myself, “We the People” want OUR Constitutional First Amendment: “right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” per Mr. Thompson ‘s Due Process Jury Trial Award and my petition Jeep v Obama
The Constitution for the United States of America:
The First Amendment :
“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.”
The right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances had its antecedent in the Magna Carta.
“We the People’s” right of a redress of grievances has been and is being denied by the criminally[20] UNCONSTITUTIONAL Supreme Court FIVE’s[21] Judge Made Law of absolute immunity[22] and limited liability.[23] Constitutionally the Right is Guaranteed unencumbered by Congress shall make no law and is therefore IMMUTABLE by “The judicial Power[24] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made”[25] to wit: Judge made Law .
The Supreme Court FIVE[26]in a recent unrelated case before them – Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al., Petitioners v. Charles J. Guarnieri – wanted to make some assertion that the Constitutional First Amendment’s guarantee “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” was just a reiteration of “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” That interpretation asserts the 21st Century interpretation of a petition, but it makes no allowance for the constitutionally GUARANTEED 18th Century interpretation of a right to redress of grievances based on 13th Century’s Magna Carta’s § 61 Right to Redress! That is ABSURD from a pertinent Originalist’s historical interpretation via the Magna Carta’s § 61 Right to Redress! Our forefathers knew nothing of getting signature on petition to get something publicized or on a ballot. That type of petition had not even been invented yet. That type of petition need not involve the declared “redress of grievances” from the First Amendment.
When do they think it is going to get easier in next year when there are more people that have been subjected to their Criminal[27] Actions. There is not statute of limitation on Civil Rights ISSUES particularly ones based on a clear case of CRIMINAL fraud upon the court.
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”[30] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115
Monday, April 25, 2011, 5:12:51 PM 2011 04-25-11 JUDGE MADE LAW ABRIDGING THE RIGHT OF REDRESS REV 02.doc
[1] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attemted merder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[2] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[3] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attemted merder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[5] 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 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[6] The authority vested in the courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, on them.
[8] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[9] Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial “Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[10] Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial “Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[11] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[12] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attemted merder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[13] “$14 Million Jury Award to Ex-Inmate Is Dismissed” By ADAM LIPTAK, NYTimes, Published: March 29, 2011
[14] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attemted merder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[15] NYTimes “The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t” 4/10/11
[16] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 560 Justice Douglas’s dissent from the Judge made law of Absolute Immunity.
[17] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 560 Justice Douglas’s dissent from the Judge made law of Absolute Immunity.
[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[19] To hope to recoup a loss, victims have to from their criminally diminished position (for Mr. Thompson 14 years in a jail cell on death row, for me 7 ½ years of denial 3 ½ years of poverty and homelessness) find other victims that were in a timely and similar local criminal fashion been denied their rights also. THAT IS NOT DIFFICULT that is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!
[20] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attemted merder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[21] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[22] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[24] The authority vested in the courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, on them.
[25] 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 made”
[26] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[27] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[28] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[29] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
No comments:
Post a Comment