The credibility of eyewitness identifications
is a minor issue.
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."
"Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick[1]
Saturday, August 27, 2011, 9:47:34 AM
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[2] as a big issue. [3]" 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 Systems 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.[4]" "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"[5]. "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"[6].
"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."[7]
YET We the People can not even bring the corruption, malice and incompetence of our Judges, Prosecutors and perjurious Police Persons to court because they have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity" [8] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[9] "before out of Court"[10] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[11]
"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. [12] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[13].
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[14]
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,[15]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[16] 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"[17] 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, August 27, 2011, 9:47:34 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
[2] Editorial: Witness identification system needs reform, Chicago Sun-Times, NJ Supreme Court orders change to police lineups, Newsday (subscription)
[3] "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.
[4] 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)
[8] "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
[9] 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."
[13] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[14] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[15] 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"
[16] 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
No comments:
Post a Comment