How can you respect a Justice System,
That has no SELF-RESPECT?
The FLAW in American Justice
Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 12:13:38 PM
The Justice system for the United States of America has no self-respect. I say that because of Supreme Court's numerous and repeated precedent[1] avowing its malice, corruption and incompetence. Supreme Court precedent openly admits malice, corruption and incompetence of the Judiciary with its criminal conspiracy[2] against rights. It is blatant unmitigated actus reus[3] and mens rea.[4] The Supreme Court openly and willfully admits that it can not control its own, the Judiciary, and concedes its creditability, with its self-respect, via the assertion of an unavoidably, malicious, corrupt and incompetent Judiciary. You really have to read the precedent to even believe that the Supreme Court of the United States of America could be so naive to assert that the independence to deny "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[5] is in We the People's best interest.
The Supreme Court of the United States goes further while granting Police Officer's absolute immunity for their perjured testimony and has the unmitigated gall to assert "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] My response is YA THINK?????????? The Supreme Court of the United States has been professionally inbreeding for years and their tolerance and support of malice, corruption and incompetence is the horrific result.
The Supreme Court of the United States in repeated precedents states that the denial of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[7] is in the public interest. They have forgotten they have been given the "Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." [8] "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."[9]
The Supreme Court of the United States' unlawful and unconstitutional tolerance for malice, corruption and incompetence within the ranks of the Judicial Process is beyond belief. The Supreme Court of the United States has obviously forgotten their purpose to establish justice[10] under the Law.[11] We the People declared our independence, fought our Revolutionary War and wrote our constitution to ELIMINATE an all-powerful immune ruler and establish a written democratically agreed Supreme Law of the Land.[12] To now assert immunity from the Supreme Law of the Land[13] is to negate the raison d'être for the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution for the United States of America and the First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances.
Immunity as asserted by the Supreme Court has its roots in the Common Law. In the era of Common Law, the law was not written down, it was what ever the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants said it was. Our fore fathers in the declaration of independence said "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." King George held himself to be immune from our repeated petitions and AGAIN the raison d'être for the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution for the United States of America and the First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances was to over come immunity from the Supreme Law of the Land[14]
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity" [15] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy"[16] "before out of Court"[17] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [18] The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others "Absolute Immunity."[19]
You have to read the Supreme Court precedents to actually believe the absurdity of their corrupt, malicious and self-serving assertions:
"It is a principle of our law ("absolute Immunity") that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; (blatant actus reus and mens rea) therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed and disenfranchised) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" (ALL BULLSHIT, competency, corruption, and malice are in the opinion of the Supreme Curt of the United States of America "vexatious actions") Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[20] @ Page 80 U. S. 349
and again
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (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. 57 (1967)) non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).[21]
and again
"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.(YA think????) The absolute immunity for prosecutors recognized in Imbler bars one possible avenue of redress for such defendants. Similarly, in this case, the absolute witness immunity bars another possible path to recovery for these defendants. But we have recognized, again and again, that in some situations, the alternative of limiting the official's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. (AGAIN ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed, disenfranchised and LEFT WITHOUT REDRESS) As Judge Learned Hand wrote years ago:
"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."(By this logic no one is safe. We the People live in "constant dread" of "dishonest officers" in DIRECT violation of the Forth Amendment's guarantee "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause")
Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950). [Footnote 32]
In short, the rationale of our prior absolute immunity cases governs the disposition of this case. ("absolute immunity" for all) In 1871, common law immunity for witnesses[22] (That is a bold face lie based on Floyd and Barker (1607) as referenced in the origin of Judicial immunity Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)) was well settled. The principles set forth in Pierson v. Ray to protect judges and in Imbler v. Pachtman to protect prosecutors also apply to witnesses, who perform a somewhat different function in the trial process, but whose participation in bringing the litigation to a just -- or possibly unjust -- conclusion is equally indispensable." (It is only "indispensable" for the furtherance of the ministerial conspiracy against rights.) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
"Absolute Immunity is diametrically opposed the civilized establishment of the rule of law, and "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" [23] BY DEFINTION!!!! Now if the Supreme Court wants to argue derivation of definition as estabvlished by any dictionary that is another issue)
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity" [24] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy"[25] "before out of Court"[26] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [27] The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others "Absolute Immunity."[28]
Who do they think their fooling?
"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. [29] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[30].
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 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"[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)
Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 12:13:38 PM, 2011 08-05-11 What do We the People gain from immunity - 5 times the rate of incarceration REV 99RX.doc
[1] "Immunity" Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity"), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for the nonconsensual sterilization of a health minor child ), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for having sent the US Marshall's out to physically drag an attorney into court.), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process"
[3] Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States.
[4] Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty".
[8] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
[9] FEDERALIST No. 78, "The Judiciary Department" From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
By Alexander Hamilton, To the People of the State of New York
[10] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America (1788) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
[11] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made"
[12] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
[13] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
[14] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
[15] "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
[16] 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."
[19] "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
[20] It should be noted that this precedent, Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871), and the only and other precedent preceding it Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) were both in obvious if not deliberate response to § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) and the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) respectively.
[21] Uneditted text from Page 80 U. S. 349 "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (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))
[22] Floyd and Barker (1607). (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber. First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23. "conspiracy doth not lye against a Juror or Indictor, but against a Witnesse." Witness absolute IMMUNITY abrogates the laws of Perjury!!!!!!!!
[24] "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
[25] 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."
[28] "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] 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 "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"
[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, 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