Wednesday, May 4, 2011

The Rule of Law or The Rule of Judicial Precedent Wednesday, May 04, 2011, 4:04:22 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't


The Rule of Law
or
The Rule of Judicial Precedent
Wednesday, May 04, 2011, 4:04:22 PM

In our government of the People, by the People and for the People the democratically originated Constitutional Rule of Law takes primacy over the Rule of Judicial Precedent. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[1]

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void... To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.[2]” 
The People via their representatives wrote the Constitution and make the laws.  “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.[3]”  The Judiciary is limited to clarifications on the record in open court as an interpretation, not necessarily THE interpretation, as they attempt to resolve “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.”
Our forefathers revolted under the arbitrary denial of justice, the divine-right discretion of King George III’s government, “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.”[4]  We the People in our constitution sought to establish Justice[5] via Due Process of law[6] and the Jury[7] System.   Governmental Immunity and or limited-liability are repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America and the History of the United States of America.  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

our forefathers sought to secure for themselves and “our Posteritythe un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Now I realize the first amendment does not technically assert “justifiably” as a limit, but our forefathers made clear their intent to establish Justice[8] in the preamble, Justice[9] was to a governing principle.  They were not condoning vexatious or frivolous petitions with this declaration.  There were acknowledging that one man’s mole hill might be another man’s mountain and that ALL case should be resolved by “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[10] to wit: Due Process of Law and a Trial by Jury as the means to justice in the United States of America. 
It is madness to assert that in defining their new government, the Constitution for the United States of America, our forefathers would tolerate the same governmental discretion, the arbitrary denial of justice, which had fomented their revolt - under another name, immunity, limited liability.
Yet our Judiciary today wants to assert that their unbounded judicial discretion is immune[11] from any redress of grievances based on their too-ancient precedent alone.  The rule of law as defined by any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America [12]” be dammed  
Precedent when judiciously applied is a good thing.  The colonist saw this issue potentially coming down the road, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.[13]
Precedent when corruptly or maliciously applied is NOT a good thing.  The self-serving Judiciary saw it coming also.  The self-serving Judiciary, post Civil War, established what they now assert as binding precedent in 1872, “A judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge, although those acts would be in excess of his jurisdiction, or of the jurisdiction of the court held by him, for these are particulars for his judicial consideration, whenever his general jurisdiction over the subject matter is invoked.” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 352
Now in 1872 that had more credibility than it does today.  There was a parallel universe if you will.  In the East things were evolving, if not progressing.[14]  Racism was the dominant precedent, the most immediate impediment to our more perfect union.  It is my assertion that Slavery, racism and Jim Crow, for malicious, corrupt and self-serving reasons created the need/precedent for Judicial Immunity.  The case Bradley v. Fisher (1872) actually grew out of the prosecution of Abraham Lincoln’s assignation.  The need, north and south, grew out of the deep-rooted contradiction of equality and “Jim Crow” racism.  You could not maintain or enforce the racism of Jim Crow in a country supposedly based on the equal protection of the law without an arbitrary unimpeachable racism-serving immunity. 
In the other universe, the West, we were growing faster than our infrastructure could support.  A large percentage of the population could not read nor were they educated to any real degree in anything other than their immediate livelihood.  I call it the Judge Roy Bean (1825 – 1903) “the only law west of the Pecos” era.  Law enforcement was in remission if you will.  There was a need for someone with “a competent knowledge” of the law to make what might appear to be arbitrary unjustified pronouncements.  That was justified at the time, “was” being the operative word. 
These two independent self-serving universes created the apparent need for immunity:
Our conscience and our infrastructure have since caught up.
We now acknowledge our racism if not our lack of legal infrastructure as issues from the past.  We are trying to get on with the goal of a more perfect union.  We were there with the Declaration of Independence 235 year ago, on paper.  We just did not have the will.  220 years ago at the ratification of the Bill of Rights we had the tools.  What we needed was LEADERSHIP.  The most glaring difficulty with the system of binding legal precedent is leadership.  Precedent cannot be reconciled with leadership.  Once an issue is incorporated into the dogma of legal precedent by definition it is there for all time.  That is why We the People thought it necessary to throw off the precedent of The Divine Right of Kings and establish for ourselves:

 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[15]

Yet today in the United States of America We the People have no enforceable rights.  Even though we declared as the supreme Law of the Land and that Judges in every State shall be bound thereby 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

Even though with statute law in 1871 declared:
 We the People are subject to the royal whim of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary.  They assert self-serving judge made law of precedent and denied the Due Process Jury award for an admitted aggrieved petitioner for redress. 


In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”  United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) Page 106 U. S. 219The First Amendment offers no security:

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

It is nothing more than Free Speech unless you establish Justice,[16] due process for substantive justice between government and governed.  
When our forefathers stated in our 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?”[17] Were they being denied “Free Speech” or the right to substantive justice between government and governed? 
Our REVOLUTION was based on the denial of substantive justice between government and governed.  The First Amendment secures substantive justice between government and governed:

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

Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[18] for denial of substantive justice between government and governed!!!!!!!!

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[19] 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/)
Wednesday, May 04, 2011, 4:04:22 PM 2011 05-05-11 there is no safety for the citizen  REV 00.doc



[1] Article. VI. Second Paragraph The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[2] The Federalist No. 78, “The Judiciary Department” Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
[3] The Definition of Judicial Power 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” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[4] The Declaration of Independence:  IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[5] 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.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[6] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[7] 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.”
[8] 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.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[9]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, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” “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.
[10] Article III, Section 2. The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[11] CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) “difficult problems of proof,” and a“stringent standard of fault” 
[13] The Federalist No. 78, “The Judiciary Department” Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton.
[14] It should be noted that this is post Civil war 1861-1865.  We were evolving from aspiration of our Declaration on Independence of “all men are created equal,” via impediment of slavery and post civil war Jim Crow into a more perfect union. 
[15] Article. VI. Second Paragraph The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[16] 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.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[17]We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury” IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


--
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