Monday, May 23, 2011

Strict Scrutiny without Strict Liability is just SOPHISTRY


Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re:Strict Scrutiny without Strict Liability is just SOPHISTRY
     With an innocent person the Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant.

Dear Mr. Roberts,
I remind you that our Country was founded on the desire to establish Justice for a Free People.  Our Forefathers had long suffered under the IMMUNE despotic rule of the Government of King George III of England.  They had repeatedly petitioned the Government of King George III, I quote In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress[1] in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”[2]  They sought Justice between the government and the governed. 
As you may or may not know, I have written to you before.  I feel again compelled to bring you up to speed on Constitutional Law.  Thomas Jefferson to my knowledge said it first and best, “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions 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.[3]   I realize you see your function, as a Supreme Court Justice, as somehow defending YOUR interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America.  But when you inflict it on “We the People” then I have an issue.  We have not lived in a laissez-faire economy since the New Deal.  We have not lived under the Immune rule of a King since July 4, 1776. 
How do you justify the arbitrary power grab of self-serving Judge Made Law of Immunity[4] or even a contrived shibboleth laden labyrinth of limited liability[5] that deprives the 7th Amendment’s protection?  No where in the Constitution is that power provided for?  We the People wrote the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.  No-where in English Common Law is that power confirmed? 
Yes John Marshal originally made the dubious power grab for Judge Made Law in Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)).  But even there he referenced that the King was liable to a free people.  “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. (Page 5 U. S. 163)
Strict Scrutiny for Constitutional Rights is just SOPHISTRY unless and until there is STRICT LIABILITY attached to the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[6]
How do you justify Immunity with two specific constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[7] i.e., “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
How do you look yourself in the mirror when you have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America that purports:
The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph –

“This Constitution (I) , and the Laws (II) of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made (III), 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[8]

        I.      Constitution - Constitutionally secured First Amendment lawfully un-abridge-able right:
            “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[9]

      II.      Law:
   TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
   TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.
   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 stole everything and then 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[10]), 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.

    III.      All Treaties made – secures us:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[11]” as adopted by the United Nations[12] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for Each State Party to the present Covenant i.e.,  The United States of America:
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.

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”

Revised and extended Monday, May 23, 2011, 4:22:35 PM


David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.       Sophistry run Amuck
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/05/sophistry.html

cc:  My Blog - Monday, May 23, 2011, 4:22:35 PM


[1] The Forefathers had CLEARLY sought Justice for their GRIEVANCES!!!  That is why they secured for themselves and their posterity a FIRST AMENDMENT constitutional lawfully un-abridge-able right: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” i.e., Justice between the We the People and the Government.
[2] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
[3] The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[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)
[7] You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  There is not now and there was not then any titular value?  No one is that petty.  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[8] Article. VI. Constitution for the United States of America.
[9] Clearly the Authors of the Constitution were referring to the issues that were a part of 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. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”  They did not want to be ignored now all for the possibility that there posterity would be ignored either. 
[11] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[12] “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM