-->
Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay – Delivery by hand
625 North Euclid Street, Suite #326
St. Louis, MO 63108-1660
Re: The First Amendment's guaranteed legally un-abridge-able security
A request for a meeting to discuss the impeachment of the Supreme Court FIVE[1]
Dear Congressman,
This may seem far-fetched, but I assure you it is inevitably essential. I have endured over 7 ½ years (2,737 days) of criminal denial of rights, 411 days of illegal incarceration[2] (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, Jeep v. United States of America.[3] It scares me to think how many others have been overwhelmed by the CRIMINAL Deprivation of rights and not been able to resist the immune criminals. (Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (Post Civil War origin of Judicial 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 -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[4])
I do not even have the uberempathetic virtual representation we afforded foreign terrorist, I am just a non-minority natural born American Citizen. But that form of accountability is too weak, as it posits an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[5][i]
I have always been a peaceful man. I realize the only way to fight violence is to resist violence with pacifism. I believe violence at best perpetuates violence. I was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. I was and am a card-carrying-pacifist. My alternatives are limited. Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get representation, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
The Right of Petition is the un-abridge-able right to substantive justice between government and governed. This security right originated under the Magna Carta (§ 61) in June of 1215 at Runnymede. The Barons thought they had addressed it, "with lasting strength, for ever." Yet it remains an issue today nearly 800 years later.
The Right to substantive justice between government and governed was again addressed in the Magna Carta 1297 and The Petition of Right 1628. They both denied Sovereign Immunity and assured the un-abridged right to substantive justice between government and governed via the "lawful judgment of his peers."
In colonial times it cropped up again with the Declaration of Independence "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."[6] The government of King George III's denial of the colonist's Right to substantive justice between government and governed was the cause for the Revolutionary war (1776-1782).
In 1789 in the First Congress under the new Constitution for the United states of America, Congress and the President included in the Bill of Rights the Right to substantive justice between government and governed with 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."
Thinking that no one would be able to make any law abridging the Right.
After the Civil war in 1871 President Ulysses S. Grant fought for black civil rights when he pressed for the former slaves to be "...possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it." Grant submitted to congress his request for Congressional action in 1871, a 500-page description of the abuses being perpetrated on the newly emancipated Citizens in the post Civil War South. During the debate it was documented into the congressional record that "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, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871) and "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, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871). There was an obvious lack substantive justice between government and governed. The Congress then passed and President Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 187[7] to again assert substantive justice between government and governed.
During the Civil rights movement in the 1960's there was a group of Black American's attempting to get service at a bus station's cafeteria counter, they were arbitrarily denied. The Case came to the Supreme Court as Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). Justice William O. Douglas asserted in dissent that "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." and "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." The petitioner asserted that during the Jim Crow era it was again a problem to get substantive justice between government and governed. The Supreme Court noted the in-justice and ruled in favor of those that had been clearly "wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."
That brings us to today and CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11). The Supreme Court FIVE[8] in the majority opinion acknowledge the criminal DENIAL of Thompson's Rights yet provide no redress for the acknowledge crime. The Supreme Court FIVE acknowledge the attempted murder[9] of Thompson but refuse to even consider punishment for the crimnals. The majority, the Supreme Court FIVE, overturned Mr. Thompson's already established Due Process, [10] Jury verdict award[11] for substantive justice between government and governed. The Supreme Court FIVE have brazenly denied "effective redress" for crimes "under color of law." The Supreme Court FIVE "under color of law" are "wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."
This is clearly NOT "good Behaviour"[12]. We need to exercise our privilege to impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[13] and take back the constitutionally guaranteed and lawfully un-abridge-able right to substantive justice between the governed and the government.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
cc: file - Monday, May 02, 2011, 5:04:35 PM
enclosure
A. "The Supreme Court's DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary War"
C. A petition in the most humble terms, "A Cause of Action, Jurisdictional Statement and Pleading for the "Protection of the Laws"" Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011, by Registered mail 2/23/11
The Supreme Court's DENIAL of
The Declaration of Independence and
The Revolutionary War
Monday, May 02, 2011, 5:04:35 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."[14] That was the ORIGINAL view[15] 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"[16] and then the Revolutionary War formed the ORIGINAL view[17] 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[18] by means of Due Process of Law[19] and the Jury System,[20] "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."[21]
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,[22] the Jury System[23] as the arbitrator to establish Justice.[24]
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.[25] 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 law to wit: due process of 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"[26] 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"[27] 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 & 1985. The 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[28] has, in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) been derelict in their duty with "fraud on court,[29]" 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 abridgment "difficult problems of proof," and limited liability as regards the already established Due Process of Law[30] Jury Award[31] of Mr. Thompson. This is a refusal to take note of We the People "under this Constitution,[32] the Laws[33] of the United States, and Treaties[34] made" Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788).
The current Supreme Court FIVE[35] 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"[36] 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."[37] "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.[38]" 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 denied by immune CRIMINALS persecuting, not prosecuting, in our justice system, wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[39] 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"[40] 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/)
Monday, May 02, 2011, 5:04:35 PM 2011 05-02-11 Lacy Clay Meeting REV 03.doc
[1] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[3] 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/).
[5] "EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR," Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1365 (2007).page 1387(24).
[6] "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The Declaration Independence"
[7] Now codified in the USC as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985
[8] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[9] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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.
[10] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process of Law
[11] 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."
[12] 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"
[13] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[14] "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[15] This should appease all the Originalist's in the audience. I would assert that this is the Current view also.
[16] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[17] This should appease all the Originalist's in the audience.
[18] "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."
[19] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[20] VII (7th) Amendment to the Constitution
[21] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[22] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process of Law
[23] 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."
[24] "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."
[25] V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[26] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[28] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[29] In a Judicial proceeding a party's misconduct so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding
[30] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process of Law
[31] 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."
[32] First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[34] 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.
[35] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[36] 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"
[37] "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[38] "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
[39] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."
--
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