Sunday, August 28, 2011

Am I the only one that can see it? That is INSANITY!!!!


Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
Chairman & Publisher
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405

by US mail and E-mail (publisher@nytimes.com)

Re: Eyewitness Identifications v. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
Your recent article, "What Did They Really See?,"[1] set me off.  The credibility of eyewitness identifications maybe a problem but it is minuscule as compared to the blanket governmental grant of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY!!!!!!!!  The blanket governmental grant of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY takes us back in time to before The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61[2]), the first modern attempt at limiting government.  ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER!!!!!!
I sometimes feel like the waif in the Danish parable "The Emperor's New Cloths."[3] 

Am I the only one that can see it?

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is corrupting our Justice system.  100 years of Jim Crow can be directly linked to the not coincidental timing of the two initiating Supreme Court precedents, Randall (1868) and Bradley (1871), and the passage of § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act[4] that clearly made "whoever" i.e., Judges, statutorily criminally liable for the deprivation of rights and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[5] that clearly made "Every person" i.e., Judges, statutorily civilly liable for the deprivation of rights. 

NOTE: Randall (1868) gave the Judiciary Immunity from criminal prosecution for the deprivation of rights without any reference to the clear - two year old - legislative intent § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make them criminally liable and Bradley (1871) gave the Judiciary ABSOLUTE POWER[6] and ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from criminal and civil prosecution for the deprivation of rights without any reference to the clear - not even a year old - legislative intent of § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act.  This was naively never even question until it was all confirmed in 1967 with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547.

We the People have since Randall (1868) and Bradley (1871) lived in the ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY era, where we NOW incarcerate 5 times[7] as many people per capita as the rest of the world.  We incarcerate more people per capita in our modern police state, one in 100 adults,[8] than most of the infamous police states in modern history, Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao Zedong's China, and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.
The only even remotely viable defense for ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is that to attempt to deal with it would require tooooo much effort.  To ask Judges to consider true viable "probable cause" for their brethren in the Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges would require tooooo much effort.  Am I again the only one that sees, that begs the question by saying the problem is tooooo big to fix.  The only problems tooooo big to fix are Death and Taxes.  Does not every other viable organization in America have a first line respondeat superior liability to self regulate.  What makes out government of the People, by the People and FOR the People, our Justice Department, incapable of first line respondeat superior liability to self regulate?  Or to say it more clearly what makes our Justice Department incapable of performing its job per the People's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[9]  Do the Judges actually believe their swill, they need to be able to act "with independence and without fear of consequences,"[10] i.e., to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that We the People can or should do nothing to oppose them?
That is INSANITY!!!!
Now if you go back to the Divine Right of Kings, there was no liability for His chief justice, His officials, or any of His servants.  That was then. THIS IS NOW!  We the People threw off that form of government with our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights to establish a government of the People, by the People and FOR the People
Now the Supreme Court likes to allude to a Common Law Justification for immunity, it does not exist, it NEVER HAS as regards the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[11]  Why did We the People write a constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[12] if per Common Law it would have no binding effect?  I mean why would We the People even have put our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights on paper if it were not our intention to incorporate ourselves into government to indemnify each others "rights, privileges, or immunities"[13] with the First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able[14] right to petition our government of the People, by the People and FOR the People for redress of grievances acknowledging its source in the Magna Carta 1215 (§ 61[15])?
Now King George III of England ignored the colonist repeated petitions prior to the Declaration of Independence[16] based on their legal rights under The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, the Magna Carta (1215 § 61), and The Petition of Right 1628[17] for redress of their grievances and they sent him the Declaration of Independence.
Our corrupt Judiciary is just as ignorant as King George III.  I have sent NUMEROUS petitions[18] to attempt to settle my grievances, to date all have been DENIED!!!!
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained."[19]  Now granted we will never obtain justice perfected but the never ending search for that elusive perfection is what gives life meaning.  But, this is not an issue of theoretical Justice, this is a common sense issue "give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice"[20] based on established Due Process of Law as prescribed by Supreme Court's own prior PRECEDENT.  The only issue is in HOLDING the Judges, the Prosecutors and the Police liable for their own VERIFIABLE unconstitutional, malicious, corrupt and incompetent actions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"




David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.       "The credibility of eyewitness identifications is a minor issue."  Saturday, August 27, 2011

cc: Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President & General Manager
Public Editor (public@nytimes.com)
Executive Editor (Executive Editor@nytimes.com)
Managing Editor (Managing-Editor@nytimes.com)
News Department (NYTnews@nytimes.com)
       My Blog - Sunday, August 28, 2011, 3:27:27 PM


The credibility of eyewitness identifications
is a minor issue.[21]
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."
"Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick[22]
Sunday, August 28, 2011, 3:27:27 PM
The credibility of eyewitness identifications is minor issue as compared to the blanket governmental grant of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY!!!!!!!!
The New York Times and several other publications are currently espousing the credibility of eyewitness identifications with in our criminal justice system with several articles[23] as a big issue.  [24]" I quote from the article:
"Chief Justice Stuart Rabner noted that misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country. He wrote: "The changes outlined in this decision are significant because eyewitness identifications bear directly on guilt or innocence. At stake is the very integrity of the criminal justice system and the courts' ability to conduct fair trials.""
I have to laugh,

HA, HA, HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!

pardon me. 
Eyewitness identifications are the LEAST of the Justice System's worries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The system is based on corruption at its core!!!!!!!!!!  One need only read the Supreme Courts Precedents!!!!!!!! This is the same justice system that espouses corruption top to bottom with an unconscionable blanket grant of immunity for malice, corruption and incompetence:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.[25]"To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty"[26]. "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers"[27].
"Looking at the question upon principle and apart from the authority of adjudged cases, we think it still clearer that this branch of the defense cannot be maintained. It seems to be opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, must be determined. In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (corrupt, malicious and incompetent) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."[28]
We the People can not even bring the corruption, malice and incompetence of our Judges, Prosecutors and Police Persons to court because they have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. 
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[29] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[30] "before out of Court"[31] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[32]
"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. [33]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[34]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[35]
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,[36]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[37] 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"[38] 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)
Sunday, August 28, 2011, 3:27:27 PM, 2011 08-27-11 The credibility of eyewitness identifications is minor issue as compared to the blanket governmental grant of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY REV 01.doc



[1] Editorial, Published: August 26, 2011, A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 27, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: What Did They Really See? New Jersey's strict new rules on eyewitness evidence could become the national standard.
[2] "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. 
[3] ""The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Kl├Žder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages." Wikipedia
[6] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 352 "But if on the other hand a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge, although those acts would be in excess of his jurisdiction, or of the jurisdiction of the court held by him, for these are particulars for his judicial consideration, whenever his general jurisdiction over the subject matter is invoked."  This in effect nullifies the prohibition of ex-post facto laws U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3, art. I § 10 cl. 1.  Per Bradley (1871) a Judge can do whatever they might want disregarding our rights or the existence or need of any legislative or statutory law!!!!  And this was and is all a unlawful ministerial grant by and for ministers!!!!
[7] "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
[8] U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008
[10] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)
[12] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph – "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."  There is NO IMMUNITY from the Supreme Law of the Land, especially as noted "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
[14] The Colonist had read their history, unlike the Supreme Court, they had seen King John in 1215 almost immediately try to wriggle out His commitments to a right to petition for a redress of grievances less than a year after He signed it with the assist of Pope Innocent III.  Our forefathers had hoped to avoid that issue by constitutionally, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, stating "Congress shall make no law abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  For the Supreme Court to attempt to wriggle out of it by ministerially nullifying the constitutional intent with their ministerial assertion of immunity is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The founders had most recently seen King George III ignore right to petition for a redress of grievances in The Declaration of Independence i.e., "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury"
[15] "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. 
[16] "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."  The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[17] The Petition of Right speaks to immunity/ an exemption i.e., Section of "IX. And also sundry grievous offenders, by color thereof claiming an exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the same laws and statutes, upon pretense that the said offenders were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid; which commissions, and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws and statutes of this your realm."
[18] Eighth Circuit U.S. Court Of Appeals 07-2614   David Jeep  vs.  Philip Jones, Sr.; 08-1823  David Jeep  vs.  Jack Bennett; 09-2848   David Jeep  vs.  United States; 10-1947  David Jeep  vs.  Jack Bennett; 11-2425   David Jeep  vs.  Barack Obama, President;
[19] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal.  Wednesday, February 6, 1788.  James Madison
[20] As recently quoted by SCALIA, J., dissenting in SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453  (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617  (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162  (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans,  333 U. S. 483  (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18  (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399  (1966)."
[21] "What Did They Really See?" Editorial, Published: August 26, 2011, A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 27, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: What Did They Really See? New Jersey's strict new rules on eyewitness evidence could become the national standard.
[24] "What Did They Really See? Editorial, Published: August 26, 2011, A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 27, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: What Did They Really See? New Jersey's strict new rules on eyewitness evidence could become the national standard.
[25] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967)
[29] "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
[30] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "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."
[34] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[36] 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"
[37] 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.


--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"

"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316