Strict scrutiny for Constitutional Civil Rights is literally not worth the paper it is written on
without STRICT LIABILITY for rights!!!!!!!!!!!
The FLAW in American Justice
Wednesday, June 08, 2011, 4:19:31 PM
The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity” [1] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”[2] “out of Court”[3] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [4]
I am currently trying to get my Constitutional Civil Rights issue, based on the Magna Carta § 61 (1215),[5] Floyd and Barker (1607),[6] Blackstone Commentaries (1765-1769),[7] The Declaration of Independence (1776),[8] the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[9] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 (1871), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 (1871) and treaties made, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[10]” (as adopted by the United Nations[11] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977), before the US Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Court as Jeep v Obama, Case #4:11-cv-00931-???.
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strict scrutiny for Constitutional Civil Rights is literally not worth the paper it is written on with out STRICT LIABILITY for rights attached!!!!!!!!!!!!
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[13]" 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) and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98!!!
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”[14] 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)
Wednesday, June 08, 2011, 4:37:06 PM, A remedy is afforded for the invasion upon a right by mere operation of law REV 01.doc
[1] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[2] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) was NEVER a grant of absolute immunity even during the reign of the king. There was always a “but if.” “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[5] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
[6] The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity” for and by Judges in the government of the United states of America is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy” “out of Court” to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”
Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) was NEVER a grant of absolute immunity even during the reign of the king. There was always a “but if.” “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[7] Blackstone Commentaries, third volume, page 23, Private Wrongs page 21/50 (Google Commentaries_on_the_laws_of_England_in_f.pdf) Marbury v. Madison, Page 5 U. S. 163 (1803)
Blackstone states a remedy is afforded for the invasion upon a right by mere operation of law.
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
[8] The Declaration of Independence
[9] Amendment I, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[10] “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
[11] “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States
[12] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[13] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America
No comments:
Post a Comment