Saturday, July 23, 2011

Mr. Obama "Where does a person go for the Protection of the Laws?" The FLAW in American Justice Friday, July 22, 2011, 4:58:15 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)


Where does a person go for the
Protection of the Laws?

The FLAW in American Justice
Saturday, July 23, 2011, 3:07:28 PM

"Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law."  United States v. Classic, supra, 313 U. S. 325-326, Screws v. United States, supra, 325 U. S. 108-113, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 184 (1961)
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) @ Page 365 U. S. 177:
“Mr. Burchard of Illinois pointed out that the statutes of a State may show no discrimination:
"If the State Legislature pass a law discriminating against any portion of its citizens, or if it fails to enact provisions equally applicable to every class for the protection of their person and property, it will be admitted that the State does not afford the equal protection. But if the statutes show no discrimination, yet, in its judicial tribunals, one class is unable to secure that enforcement of their rights and punishment for their infraction which is accorded to another, or, if secret combinations of men are allowed by the Executive to band together to deprive one class of citizens of their legal rights without a proper effort to discover, detect, and punish the violations of law and order, the State has not afforded to all its citizens the equal protection of the laws."”  Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. App. 315
This all started eight years ago with the deprivation of rights was instigated by two self confessed, on the witness stand under oath, INCOMPETENT police officers.  I had been denied the exculpable material[1] I had requested pretrial that would have proven their INCOMPETENTANCE.  They were clothed with the authority of state law and I had been denied the exculpable proof of their incompetence.
In court the case started when Judge Bennett held me overnight without probable cause on an infamous charge without allowing me bare minimum Due Process to be heard on the LACK of probable cause.[2]  He eventually recused himself for his bad act, but the irreparable DAMAGE had already been piled on;   Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones unconstitutionally use of Judge Bennett’s bad act against me in an additional unrelated infamous charge. 
Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones both ordered me held without probable cause on an infamous charge, an ex parte order of protection, based on Judge Bennett’s unrelated bad act and without access to Due Process of Law.
At the Due Process hearing the specifics of the ex parte order of protection were changed by Commissioner Jones.  I quote from the transcript “The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.  The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true.”  Despite two post trial motions I was never given a set of those findings, amended pleadings, and I was never afforded my Due Process right to be heard on the amended pleadings. 
Judge Colyer and the Prosecuting attorneys, Mr. Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mr. W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney at the same time in a different courtroom on a different case withheld exculpable material[3] Pre-trial and AT-trial.  The Police Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920 and Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913 presented false if not perjeriuos fraudulent testimony. 
Judge Colyer refused me a mistrial with the full knowledge of the fraudulent testimony and the denial of exculpable material.
In the eight years since this deprivation of rights was instigated by two self confessed INCOMPETENT police officers I have contacted then Attorney General State of Missouri Jay Nixon,  Sheriff of Camden County, Missouri State Highway Patrol, then Governor State of Missouri Mathew Blunt, Catherine Hannaway (AUSA), Carol E. Jackson (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al), US District Court Judge, Scott O. Wright (4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al), Senior US District Judge, 8th District US Court of Appeals (07-2614 & 08-1823), Mike Christian (FBI),  Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) Raymond Meyer (AUSA), Attorney General Eric Holder, President of the United States Goerge W. Bush, President of the United States Barack Obama, The Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, The Supreme Court.  And US Supreme Court (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) with Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter before their retirement.
All of them took the oath of office:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

NONE of them have done their duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”  YET, NONE of them were willing to provide me the protection of the laws!!!!
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 1961 and 1967. [4]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[5]
EVERYONE involved in the judicial process has immunity for the deprivation of the Protection of the Laws i.e., “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[6]
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection,”
MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163
The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case.  The Damage has been done and is irreversible.  It is Damages or nothing.
Where does a person go for the
Protection of the Laws?

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[7]
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,[8]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[9] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011!!!
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 23, 2011, 3:07:28 PM, 2011 07-22-11 Where does a person go for the Protection of the Laws REV 99RX.doc


[1] “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.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[2] "Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law."  United States v. Classic, supra, 313 U. S. 325-326, Screws v. United States, supra, 325 U. S. 108-113, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 184 (1961)
[3] “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.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[5] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[8] 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"
[9] 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, than according to the rules of the common law.