Limited Liability = Immunity
Somebody must think somebody is REALLY STUPID.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 9:05:07 AM
The Supreme Court FIVE[1] in their recent ruling in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011 relied on the precedent for limited liability[2] to favor the petitioner Connick, District Attorney, et al. Connick was contesting the Due Process Jury Award to Thompson that had been properly awarded and upheld by the 5th Circuit Federal trial court Judge and the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Judges en banc.
The Supreme Court FIVE[3] in the majority opinion asserted: “As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents “difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12” (Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392). That precedent not only negates our First Amendment Right to a redress of grievances, the “difficult problems of proof” are not just difficult they are virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the average victim to overcome. First off the victim who has sustained the loss has to at their own expense from his or her weaken position (e.g., a jail cell on DEATH row[4] and/or homelessness and poverty[5]) has to find other victims who have been victimized in timely and a similar fashion by the same Incorporated Governmental Agency before their Constitutional Right to an equity redress of grievances can be considered. That is not a just “difficult problems of proof” that is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Precedent is too often JUDGE made law, nowhere in the Constitution is Judge Made LAW provided for or envisioned. The Supreme Court Constitutional authority is limited and described as: “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.”[6] If for example I were to petition the court to hold you responsible to me for damages because you merely looked at me funny, they would rightly refuse to hear it because there was no actual loss. That is a credible use of Judicial power under the law, in that case more aptly described as the limit of Judicial power in the ABSENCE of law. They could not step in and assign you liability for damage that could not be proven.
Now as the Supreme Court FIVE[7] clearly knows, nowhere in the Constitutional assurance of the First Amendment,
“Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is there any limitation on the liability of “the Government”
is limited liability expressed or authorized. Point in fact the Amendment as written EXPRESSLY prohibits Congress from making “law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” How the Supreme Court FIVE[8] construes that as an authorization for the Supreme Court FIVE[9] to step in where the Constitution EXPRESSLY prohibits Congress from making any law is beyond me.
Limited Liability = Immunity
Limited Liability in the terms of Supreme Court FIVE[10] EQUALS immunity. Who is responsible for Connick, District Attorney, et al’s actions? Per the Supreme Court FIVE[11] NO-ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thus Connick, District Attorney, et al have absolute and impenetrable IMMUNITY for any random act they choose not to repeat!!!!!!!!! This IMMUNITY per Supreme Court FIVE[12] goes beyond just Connick, District Attorney, et al, by prior Judge made Law i.e., precedent it includes and covers “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process[13]” for the “deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[14]
Now the Supreme Court FIVE[15] will if pushed on the issue assert that they as a Judicial authority are required by the case presented to decide based on two perspectives:
1. "As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance, it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation."[16]
2. “This provision of the law (immunity) 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” (non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis)[17]
The Supreme Court FIVE[18] are intelligent men. The Supreme Court FIVE[19] know this is, in both cases, begging the question, a logical fallacy, petitio principii, "assuming the initial point".
In the first case the Supreme Court FIVE[20] assert that the question is restricted to redress the wrongs done by dishonest officers or subjecting “those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation." That is a FALLACY!!!! There is a third solution, if the Judges were to do their job and JUDICIOUSLY administer the rule of law “We the People” can have our constitutionally SECURED right of redress and ONLY “dishonest officers” will be subject to “retaliation.” This is what establishing justice with a grant of “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made”[21] looks like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the second case the Supreme Court FIVE[22] assert that a “malicious or corrupt judge” is the price of the Benefit of judicial independence. They define the benefit of independence as the unrestricted power to “rob and disenfranchise” “We the People” and to act independently “without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America. [23]” First malicious and corrupt judges can be separated from the majority of wise and prudent judges and brought to heel by Justice, the judicial application of the Law. Secondly as regards the purported benefit of independent judges, “We the People” wrote our constitution to establish limits for our GOVERNMENT and judges. To say that independence from these limitations is a benefit defeats their raisons d'etre, a limited democratic government. Our judges are and have ALWAYS been liable to “We the People” for “any rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America. [24]”
Somebody must think somebody is REALLY STUPID. “We the People” wrote our constitution to establish limited DEMOCRATIC Government. We the People clearly sought to establish Justice under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made. The Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made clearly are based on “any rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America. [25]” To say that our Government in the person of our judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officials, or as has been asserted “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[26] have both personal and governmental respondeat superior immunity from liability for any “any rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America [27]” begs the question, why did we even write “any rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America[28]” down: if our intent was to hold NO-ONE liable for their enforcement????
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, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment (Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America (10-1947), Jeep v Jones (07-11115))
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 9:05:07 AM 2011 04-19-11 Limited Liability = Immunity REV 03.doc
[1] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[2] Limited Liability also creates an Equal Protection violation. The Victim sustains a loss for the protection of the law while the undamaged bystander is also protected and profited by the Government’s learning experience but not damaged. The difference between the damaged victim and undamaged bystander is UNEQUAL protection of the law.
[3] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[4] A Jail cell on DEATH ROW for Mr. Thompson
[5] Homelessness and Poverty for me.
[6] The Constitution for The United States of America Article III., Section. 2.
[7] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[8] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[9] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[10] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[11] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[12] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[15] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[17] (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ 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)
[18] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[19] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[20] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[21] The Constitution for The United States of America Article III., Section. 2.
[22] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
No comments:
Post a Comment