Thursday, June 2, 2011

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court" ASHCROFT v. AL-KIDD No. 10–98. Argued March 2, 2011—Decided May 31, 2011 Thursday, June 02, 2011, 9:19:36 AM

10-98 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (05/31/2011)
-->
"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
ASHCROFT v. AL-KIDD No. 10–98. Argued March 2, 2011—Decided May 31, 2011
Thursday, June 02, 2011, 9:19:36 AM

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd as represented in the undisputed facts of the case by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals[1] (No. 06-36059) and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court (No. 10–98) is a clear and indisputable case of "Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court".  For John Ashcroft to FRAUDULENTLY, without any true intention or direct knowledge of any pertinent controlling issue, represent something different to the court so as to invade Mr. al-Kidd's rights is a criminal act. 

For "We the People" to allow it is to sacrifice the protection of our own "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[2]  This was, on John Ashcroft's part, a criminal act redress able by private civil action, Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, and punishable by a fine and imprisonment, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242

If We the People passively allow our representative acting in our name under color of law to act without regard to our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[3] we deserve the domination and oppression we will soon have.  We the People democratically established our Constitution for the United States of America to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[4]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[5] " 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"[6] 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)

Thursday, June 02, 2011, 9:19:36 AM, Separate and Unequal.doc

cc:  My Blog - Thursday, June 02, 2011, 9:19:36 AM



[1] ABDULLAH AL-KIDD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 06-36059 D.C. No. CV-05-00093-EJL
[5] 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