The Constitution ELIMINATED Common Law Immunity
The FLAW in American Justice
Saturday, July 09, 2011, 11:54:19 AM
Common Law Immunity was ELIMINATED by the advent of a WRITTEN Constitution. I mean why would We the People even have made the effort of a constitution if not to hold our Government in CHECK with liability for “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
“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.”[2]
To assert Sovereign, Ministerial, Governmental, Judicial, Prosecutorial, Police or “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” for “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[3] as is currently held is insanity. Why did We the People even make the effort to write a constitution?
Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) asserted statute law eliminated “whatever immunity may have existed at common law.” He went beyond the issue briefed in the petition, witness immunity, and declared that he thought all common law IMMUNITY had been overridden by § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[4]: “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act,[5] notwithstanding President Johnson's[6] objections. Because, as Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act[7] provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871.” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) emphasis and underlining added, internal footnotes omitted)
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,[9]" 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”[10] 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, July 09, 2011, 11:54:19 AM, 2011 07-09-11 The Constitution ELIMINATED Common Law Immunity REV 00.doc
[2] Constitution for the United States of America
[6] Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) Veto of the Civil Rights Bill,
President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto “This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order.“ “It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose.”
[8] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[9] 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"
No comments:
Post a Comment