The Flaw in American JOURNALISM
Things are NOT as They Were
Friday, July 15, 2011, 9:39:05 AM
It use to be that “To bereave a man of life, says he or by violence to confiscate his estate, without Due Process of Law would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation!!!!!!!!!!!![1]” Things are NOT as they were. In the 18th Century during revolutionary times American JOURNALISM was courageous. They fought and died for the freedom of the press. Things are NOT as they were; revolutionary American JOURNALISM would never have stood still for “so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation” as they do today.
Men are bereaved of their children, their life, their liberty, and their property, without DUE PROCESS of LAW, all the time in the courthouses of America
Did not We the People of the United States fight a revolutionary war to throw off the incorporated acts of the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants that asserted themselves to be “of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the record.”[6]
Did not We the People of the United States say in our preamble:
“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.”[7]
Did not We the People of the United States incorporate our selves into a government and bind all authorized under color of law to abide by:
“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.”[8]
Did not We the People’s of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment guarantee:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Yet, NO one is alarmed, our journalist do not even care, few people are thus even aware men are bereaved of their children, their life, their liberty, and their property, without Due Process of Law, because of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary’s unlawful conspiracy, immunity, is "before out of Court."[9] Immunity is "before out of Court"[10] an "unlawful Conspiracy"[11] "extrajudicial"[12] self-serving ministerial rule, there is NO constitutional[13] or statutory[14] law authorizing it, at the highest levels of the United States of America's Executive (prosecutorial) and Justice (judicial) Departments, to deprive We the People the protection of constitutionally secured Due Process of Law. Immunity "before out of Court," [15] as handed out in the American Justice System, like Halloween candy, [16] in purpose and in effect unlawfully covers-up “false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he/she knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty.”[17] That is based on the common law precedent of Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) that supposedly authorized immunity at its American inception (Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)).
A thief steals your belongings in the dark of night with a gun. A Judge steals your life, liberty, family and property in the broad light of day with a gavel via the denial of DUE PROCESS of LAW. You have no redress, The Supreme Court has made a rule and declared “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”[18] We reward quilty persons for the deprivation of their rights with The Exclusionary Rule. But The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in an innocent person’s case. It is Damages or nothing.[19]
You only have rights if you have money e.g., "Ladies and gentlemen," he told jurors, "We have taken about a week out of your life. We expended a lot of your taxpayers money to reach this point. Unfortunately there are rules we play by and those rules are designed to insure that both parties receive a fair trial."[20] That was the recent ruling in the Roger Clemens perjury trial. They would not even prosecute a clear cases of perjury on my behalf, much less play by the rules designed to insure that both parties receive a fair trial"[21] and grant a miss trial based on the jury being mislead by blatantly FALSE testimony. In my case, I proved post conviction that the testimony was false, that the falsification of the testimony was only possible because the prosecutors had denied me exculpable[22] evidence in spite of my pretrial motion for said evidence.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void."[23]
This should be, per The great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), “Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty; for if once it were left in the power of any the highest magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, (as in France it is daily practised by the crown,) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. Some have thought that unjust attacks, even upon life or property, at the arbitrary will of the magistrate, are less dangerous to the commonwealth than such as are made upon the personal liberty of the subject. To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” [24]
Not in America
“Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.” “The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.” I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1967. [29] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[31]
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,[32]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[33] 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”[34] 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)
Friday, July 15, 2011, 9:39:05 AM, 2011 07-13-11 Things are NOT as they were REV 02.doc
[1] Blackstone's Commentaries (1765-1769), Vol. 1, p. 136 and The Federalist No. 84 (1788) by Alexander Hamilton
[2] “Why We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
[3] Judge Learned Hand’s apathetic corrupt assertion says it best, “As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.” Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950). Expediency is not an acceptable excuse when it comes to right and wrong, if you give in to expediency in such an issue you will expediently condemn yourself. Why would we even take the time to write down as absolute law if it was not intent to the have “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
[5] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) This is the conclusion of the precedent with EXCEPTIONS noted. Third logical argument end of the paragraph, the noted EXCEPTION, "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." (emphasis and underlining added)
[6] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) This is the conclusion of the precedent with EXCEPTIONS noted.
[7] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America
[8] Constitution for the United States of America
[9] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph, the noted EXCEPTION, "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." (emphasis and underlining added)
[10] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[11] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[12] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[13] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility 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."
You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the NOBLE Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than NOBLE Status of IMMUNITY - being above the law? Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and the Colonial era, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[14] Point in fact the statues Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 & Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 make “Whoever” criminally and “Every person” civilly liable for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” There was NEVER a sub silentio intent to exempt “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.” Why would even have attempted to write it down as the Supreme Law of the Law if EVER we were intent upon awarding those acting under color of law IMMUNITY from that very same law. Thurgood Marshall in Briscoe v LaHue said it “approaches the incredible.” I say IT IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
[15] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[16] The SUPREME COURT has abused, their non-existent, authority to make law by the grant of absolute immunity for the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights i.e., first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) followed by Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967 (JUDGES), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (PROSECUTORS), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) (Judge criminally ordered forced non-consensual uninformed sterilization of a healthy, mind and body, minor child) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
[17] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
[19] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U. S. 410 (1971)
[20] U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in the Roger Clemens federal perjury trial abruptly declared a mistrial on the second day of testimony after the government inadvertently allowed the jury to hear statements from a U.S.
[22] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.8 86-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND , 373 U. S.
[23] Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
[24] The great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), argued in his Commentaries on the Laws of England
[25] ."The Jane Crow era” “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, “Hitting below the belt” 10/25/99, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
[26] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[27] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[28] Per the RULE of precedent Kahn v. Kahn (21 F.3d 859) and Federal RULE of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) excludes before out of Court any attempt to get the protection of the 14th Amendment
[30] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[31] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[32] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America
[33] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States
