Friday, April 29, 2011

The Supreme Court’s DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary War Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:01:42 PM


The Supreme Court’s DENIAL of
The Declaration of Independence and
The Revolutionary War
Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:49:44 PM

The Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were both based on the assertion “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”[1]  That was the ORIGINAL view[2] in colonial America; I would hold still the current view in America today.  If King George III’s government had responded to the “repeated Petitions” with a redress of grievances, Justice and Due Process of Law, instead of “by repeated injury” the world would definitely be a different, possibly a much better, place today. 
The DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence’s reference “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury[3] and then the Revolutionary War formed the ORIGINAL view[4] that prompted the founding fathers to write into the new Constitution for the United States of America the First Amendment's security:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The right to substantive justice between government and governed was intended to hopefully avert future declarations and revolutions.
Given the additional Constitutional security, as a primary goal of our new Union, to establish Justice[5] by means of Due Process of Law[6] and the Jury System,[7] “We the People” thought to avoid any future arbitrary unassailable assertion of Immunity that could result in “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.[8]
But that is not the way it has played out.  Two hundred and twenty three years later The Supreme Court has fabricated, out of thin air and hubris, their unlawful abridgment, Judge made law, of immunity and or limited liability into a Jury Award for the First Amendment’s secured legally UN-abridge able right for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court usurped the power to make law by merely asserting it in their unconstitutional, over-reaching, and self-serving interpretations.  These laws were fabricated out of a self-serving desire of the Judiciary to set themselves up as the Divine Arbitrator in a system of government that had taken offence to repeated injury with the Declaration of Independence and invested LIVES in the Revolutionary War to over throw another self-serving would-be divine arbitrator, the King. 
We the people had sought to set up the Legislator in conjunction with the President as the ONLY means of making laws and Due Process of Law,[9] the Jury System[10] as the arbitrator to establish Justice.[11]
Nowhere is Judge made law envisioned or provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America.  Article I Sections 1-10 of the Constitution clearly defines how Law is to be made by the Congress of the United States and a President of the United States of America.  No mention of the Judiciary in the establishment or creation of law.  “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” per Article III, Section 2.  Clearly that limits Judicial Power “under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.” 
With the Constitution We the People defined the judicial power’s limitation.  First and foremost We the People stated our prime intent to - establish Justice.  Justice is opposed to any grant of immunity by definition, the immune person cannot be brought to Justice to wit: the King or an immune government authority.  We go further with V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to define the means of Justice to wit: Due Process of Law and Jury system.[12]  As the primary right to substantive justice between government and governed the First Amendment's security:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Government is to be held accountable for a redress of grievances by Constitutional security i.e., force of due process law and the Jury system.  We the People thus sought to pre-empt any future possibility for “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury[13] as addressed and affirmed by our Declaration of Independence and the investment of lives in the Revolutionary War.
With LAW, We the People after the Civil War sought to reinforce any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[14] and to reaffirm the right to substantive justice between government and governed for the newly emancipated slaves with LAW, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into our code of law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985The Civil Rights Act of 1871, via statute LAW, held “Every person” civilly liable and “Whoever” criminally UN-abridge ably liable for the “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law.
With Treaties made, we most recently reassured the world with “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”
We the People have with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Revolutionary War 1776-1782, the Constitution 1788, the Law “Civil Rights Act of 1871” and Treaties made “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” 1977 given CLEAR direction to the Supreme Court per 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.”. We the People demand “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The current Supreme Court FIVE[15] has, in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) been derelict in their duty with “fraud on court,[16]” in an unlawful and unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment's security:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

with their inserted “difficult problems of proof,” and limited liability as regards the already established Due Process of Law[17] Jury Award[18] of Mr. Thompson.  This is a refusal to take note of We the Peopleunder this Constitution,[19] the Laws[20] of the United States, and Treaties[21] made” Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788).
The current Supreme Court FIVE[22] has clearly committed fraud upon the court by the Supreme Court’s DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made as BINDING LAW and originalist and current PRECEDENT with their ruling CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11).
This is clearly NOT “good Behaviour[23] and an impeachable OFFENCE to We the People and the Constitution for the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Thompson and I both “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”[24]  “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000.[25]”  Our Justice system has been allowed to run unchecked for TOOO long.  We have no IDEA.  It scares me to think how many INNOCENT people may currently be incarcerated that have been denied their rights.  Rights that would have cleared their name by denied by immune CRIMINALS persecuting, not prosecuting, in our justice system, wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  I REFUSE to believe that our criminal Justice system is 5 times better!!!!  I am FORCED by the PRECEDENT of personal experience to think that 4 out of, the inflated American population, 5 of the current persons incarcerated in our prisons as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have quite possibly had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  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[26] 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 “The most humble petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:49:44 PM 2011 05-02-11 Lacy Clay Meeting REV 00.doc


[1] “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[2] This should appease all the Originalist’s in the audience. I would assert that this is the Current view also. 
[3] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[4] This should appease all the Originalist’s in the audience.
[5]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.”
[6] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[7] VII (7th) Amendment to the Constitution
[8] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[9] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[10] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
[11]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.”
[12] V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[13] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[16] In a Judicial proceeding a party’s misconduct so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding
[17] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[18] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
[19] First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[21] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
[23] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”
[24] “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[25]Why We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009



--
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