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!!!!!!!!!!!!” 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
. I mean just look at our prisons. “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000.” And it is considered tooo inexpedient to give an innocent person unconstitutionally, illegally and wrongfully convicted of an infamous crime any hope of petitioning “the Government for a redress of grievances.” 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. Who ever said the right way had to be the easy way, the expedient way. 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” The incorporated acts of the government, its Judiciary and “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” are considered “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.” Everyone has immunity from civil and criminal liability -- everyone but the innocent victim of the corruption, malice and incompetence. I have to question that? 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.”
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.”
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.”
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." Immunity is "before out of Court" an "unlawful Conspiracy" "extrajudicial" self-serving ministerial rule, there is NO constitutional or statutory 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,"  as handed out in the American Justice System, like Halloween candy,  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.” 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.” 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.
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." 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" 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 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."
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.” 
today, in the Jane Crow era you can be charged with a series of infamous crimes, the more the better, and held; there need be no probable cause, no consideration for police credibility. The Police can falsify evidence and perjure themselves without consequence. Whatever the ABSOLUTELY immune incorporated government, the prosecutors, the police, and Judicial Officers say GOES. All those integral in the judicial process, have absolute immunity, they can then pile on and take away your life, your liberty, your family, and your home without any regard for veracity or Due Process of Law. They can deny you the any opportunity to be heard "before out of Court,"  with their criminal unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”  assertion of judicial rules/law and absolute immunity. The police, the prosecutors, the judges and other conspirators can knowingly deny exculpable evidence, present false evidence. They can bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial. Yet none knows are cares because it is before our of court and it is the word infamous criminal against the Judges, the Police and all those that were integral in the judicial process. The press refuses to entertain even the possibility of “so gross and notorious an act of despotism.” There is not chance to convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole.” It is as if one were held in confinement, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, And because of the Press’s apathy it is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”!!!!!!! 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.  Mr. Lowe of
Kansas and Mr. Rainey of respectively said it in 1871. South Carolina
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE
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," denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment 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” 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
 “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
 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
 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)
 Preamble to the Constitution for the
United States of America
 Constitution for the
Article. VI. Second paragraph United States of America
 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)
 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 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!!!!!!!!!!!!
 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.”
 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
congressman questioning the credibility of one of the key witnesses against the former All-Star baseball pitcher. Online, Los Angeles Times, By Richard A. Serrano, July 14, 2011, 9:01 a.m. U.S.
 "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 83 (1963) U. S.
 Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
 The great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), argued in his Commentaries on the Laws of
(1753) that one of the key "absolute rights of individuals" was the right to the preservation of one's personal liberty. Following from this principle he further argued that it was "a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government" to "secretly hurry" a man to jail where he might suffer unknown or forgotten by the people: © 2011 Online Library of Liberty (emphasis and underling added) England
 ."The 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.
 Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
 Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" United States of America
 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
, than according to the rules of the common law. United States