Saturday, May 14, 2011

Separate and Unequal The flaw in American Justice Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 3:05:37 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)


Separate and Unequal
The flaw in American Justice
Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:08:39 AM

The flaw in American Justice is in the unchecked Absolute power of the Supreme Court Sophistry.  Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best “We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another.  In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.[1]  This has since Thomas Jefferson’s day, Alien and Sedition Acts, manifested itself in many ways, the most historically conspicuous, 100 years of Jim Crow, with Plessy v. Ferguson’s, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) assertion of “Separate but Equal” that truthfully meant, all sophistry aside, “Separate and Unequal.”
One need only look at the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876, “That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement  and compare it to Civil Rights Act (1964) we again said “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”  If the Supreme Court’s sophistry had not gotten in the way we could have avoided 100 years of racial unrest and persecution. 
It started with the Dred Scott (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856)) case, there were arguably some political vagaries between the verbiage of the Declaration of Independence’s “all men are created equal” and the verbiage of the subsequent three fifths of all other Persons,” Article. I., Section. 2, 3rd Paragraph[2] of the Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 (ratified June 21, 1788) to wit:
Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men -- high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.” Page 60 U. S. 410
To a very real extent that is true.  There were compromises made in the founding of our country.  Now did all the founders agree 100% with this compromise, NO.   But to get agreement they all accepted it.
After the Dred Scott case, after the Civil War, after we had fought a war and spilled blood to end slavery and all its ramifications of racially limited rights the same cannot be said.  There were no vagaries in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.[3]  Each of those Post Civil War amendments stipulated equal rights and “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”  Utilizing that constitutionally stipulated power Congress debated, enacted and the President signed into law the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876:

Where as it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

The Supreme Court’s “sophistry” in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) nullified the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876:

On the whole, we are of opinion that no countenance of authority for the passage of the law in question can be found in either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and no other ground of authority for its passage being suggested, it must necessarily be declared void, at least so far as its operation in the several States is concerned.” Page 109 U. S. 25

And then 13 years later with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) the Supreme Court went further with it’s “sophistry” in support of the Louisiana 1890 Separate Car Act that required the East Louisiana Railroad to segregate trains:

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.Page 163 U. S. 551

The Supreme Court knew better in regard to the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) because of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent told them so:

The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.

"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."

Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) @ Page 109 U. S. 26

Again Justice Harlan made it quite clear dissenting in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896):

 “[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.  Page 163 U. S. 559

Now “We the People did not wizen up until we passed the Civil Rights Act (1964) 100 years of Jim Crow segregation after the Civil War later.  With the Civil Rights Act (1964) we again said: 

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

An ill-advised reverential consideration of our Judges has to this day, to our determent, empowered the self-serving judge made law of Judicial Immunity.[4]  We the People, have no enforceable rights in Americaall persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” have “Absolute Immunity” for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[5] 
“We the People” have to take back the unchecked power to fabricate self-serving Judge made law out of “sophistry.”  The Judiciary is and has been criminally[6] using their “sophistry” to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the ends of Justice, We the People[7] sought to establish for “ourselves and our Posterity.”
“We the People” do not have the substantive right to Justice between the Government and the People that instigated the Declaration of Independence’s repeated petitions for redress.  “We the People” do not have the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment. 
“We the People” are at the mercy of the judges and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.  They can deprive “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[8] and there is nothing “We the People” can do about it short of Revolution and War. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[9]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[10]” denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  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[11] 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" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:08:39 AM, Separate and Unequal.doc


[1] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[2] Article. I.  Section. 9. “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
[3] AMENDMENT XIII, Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865, AMENDMENT XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868, AMENDMENT XV, Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

[4] 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”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[6] 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), 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.
[7]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
[10] 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”


--
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