Remedial Grievance
Other Remedies
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 5:01:35 PM
"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."[1] Justice has been denied since Bradley v. Fisher, 1871, originally established Absolute Immunity. This denial of justice has empowered the Jim Crow era, the Jane Crow Era and now the CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011 any RANDOM act era. With Absolute Immunity, the victim has no possibility for Justice a redress of grievances. Bradley v. Fisher acknowledges a need for Justice, a remedy, a redress for grievances, but pays only lip service. I quote:
"Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of (uberempathetic virtual representation[2]) impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 354.
An "Oops I am sorry" will not cut it.
I would assert that the First Amendment's Democratic Constitutional Assertion of a redress of grievances with liability unencumbered or limited by anything but the constitutional intent of "We the People to establish Justice[3] i.e.,
"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
is the redress the founding fathers had in mind. The founding fathers had the historical experience of the problematic enforcement of the Magna Carta's § 61[4] (1215) right of redress under the prerogative of a king. Our Democratic Constitutional GUARANTEE of "the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" limited only by Due Process of Law and the intent to establish Justice[5] has UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limited at the expense of Justice. Our constitutionally guaranteed "right of redress" IS problematic if not IMPOSSIBLE to enforce under the prerogative of the Supreme Court FIVE.[6] We the People's constitutional "right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is constitutionally limited by Due Process of Law and the ends of justice exclusively. But that is not how the Judge made UNCONSTITUTIONAL law of the Supreme Court FIVE[7] sees it.
The Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)) was sold to We the People as way to ensure our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[8] The Exclusionary Rule was never the fix it was sold as. Even less so now, (Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006) & Herring v. United States No. 07-513 (2008)) than when it was originally created as Judge made law in 1961. The Exclusionary Rule was intended to provide a citizen, whose rights have been unconstitutionally violated a remedy. The Exclusionary Rule provides absolute immunity for the criminal being unconstitutionally persecuted by the criminal Law enforcement official that has criminally violated our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9]
The Exclusionary Rule, unconstitutional judge made law, is also unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "Equal Protection." For while it provides some protection for the guilty victim of the deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws;"[10] there is no remedy for the innocent financially encumbered victim, falsely arrested, illegally convicted or denied Due Process of Law.
Now if you have vast reserves of money, the Supreme Court's shibboleth, are a member of a politically appealing minority, the backing of a politically correct action committee or the law enforcement officials have been flagrantly, repeatedly and timely incompetent by doing this same thing to several victims, you might have a case.
But if you are a lone random victim with limited financial resources without a Supreme Court shibboleth, a socially or politically appealing case, you are denied "Equal Protection," you have no remedy. You can be victimized by the denial of your "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[11]" and there is NOTHING you can do. Those acting "under color of law[12]" do not have to obey the law; they can unequally flaunt it with the random impunity of their Judge decreed immunity. The Judges, Prosecutors, Police or "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process[13]" have immunity from criminal and civil prosecution for their random unconstitutional actions "under color of law[14]."
The Exclusionary Rule, attempts by force of law to make evidence disappear. The Exclusionary Rule wanted to perform magic. We all would like to be able to perform magic but NOBODY, not even the Supreme Court can perform magic. It is all just slight of hand.
We need JUSTICE under Due Process of Law not
Judicial fiat.
What needs to happen in cases where a citizen's rights have been violated, the jury needs to be told that the evidence was seized unconstitutionally and for that reason alone they may choose not to consider it. The jury then needs to be given the option of considering the evidence as they see fit. The Judges need to get out of the way with their Judicial fiat.
The law enforcement professional, acting criminally "under color of law[15]", needs to be prosecuted vigorously criminally and civilly[16] for the crime against our Constitution, the crime against our Civil Rights. There are laws in place to do this Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. These laws have been on the books since the end of the Civil War in 1871. The Supreme Court has been in essence warring with the constitution on their enforcement since 1871 (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)).
If we truly want to feel safe in our homes free from unwarranted judicial and/or police action, if we truly believe in fair due process of law, where the defense has a right to compel the law enforcement officials to testify truthfully to their own procedures and prior sworn testimony and the defendant has a right to all the evidence, exculpable material included.[17] If we truly believe in the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[18]" we assert under our constitution, we need to enforce those rights by force of law on all those acting "under color of law[19]."
There are criminals wearing the Black Robes of the Judiciary. There are criminals wearing the pressed and starched uniforms with the badges of the police. We cannot continue to allow our law enforcement professionals to continue to have the "Free Hand" afforded by the self-serving Judge made law of immunity.
An "Oops I am sorry" will not cut it.
It is Damages or NOTHING
Finally, with Thompson and myself (Jeep) being innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. "For people in (Our) Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 410
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 Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115
DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 5:01:35 PM 2011 04-19-11 Remedial Grievance Other Remedies Tuesday, April 19, 2011 REV 02.doc
[1] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[2] Uberempathetic virtual representation is untenable, see the defense of the Terrorist Combatants Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006)
[3] The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, 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.
"If we, our chief justice (judges), 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… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… 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."
[5] The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, "We the People… establish Justice…"
[6] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[7] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[16] Any Civil Settlement in favor of subsequently convicted felon could be put in a future victims fund to assist in vindication of other victims. A civil settlement from a convicted misdemeanor charge should go to the convicted misdemeanor victim.
[17] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.86-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment