The Idea of Nine Persons Unaccountable to any electorate Ruling a DEVELOPED DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY
Is absurd in the MODERN world today
Saturday, August 06, 2011, 9:35:49 AM
The Idea of Nine Persons with life time appointments, the United States Supreme Court, unaccountable to any electorate, ruling the Democratic United States of America, the purported Leader of the Free World is absurd in today's MODERN world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has the Supreme Court ever championed besides outdated stale ideas long past their time?
Segregation, the Supreme Court forced America's victorious Civil War majority, as represented by both houses of congress and the President, to institutionalize SEGREGATION. The Civil Rights Act 1876 that Congress passed, the President signed in 1876 OUTLAWED segregation, The Supreme Court created government enforced SEGREGATION by voiding the Civil Rights Act 1876. It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Crow, separate and unequal, Plessy v. Ferguson's, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) institutionalized separate and UNEQUAL for 100 years UNTIL We the People passed the Civil Rights Act 1964 a virtual mirror image of the Civil Rights Act 1876 We the People had passed before. It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberty of Contract, under the sophistry of an assertion of liberty, the Supreme Court for 80 years at the start of the Industrial Revolution (1805-1933) favored Property rights over the Rights of Workers i.e., the rights of the few (property) over the rights of the many (workers). It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Warren Court supposedly scores big with their fight for integration, that ignores the FACT that the Supreme Court created segregation and separate and UNEQUAL by VOIDING the Civil Rights Act 1876 prohibition of segregation 100 years prior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Warren Court supposedly scores big with their fight for Civil Criminal Rights i.e., Miranda rights, the Exclusionary Rule and criminal rights in general and then DENIES any and all liability for those rights with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The later courts hand out Absolute Immunity for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" like it was Halloween Candy until NO ONE in the Judicial Process is EVER liable for "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Burger (69-86) / Rehnquist (86-05) courts while trying to undo the Exclusionary Rule, what the Warren Court had supposedly done for the Civil Rights of the accused, created the largest per capita prison population in the world. "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." Without substantially affecting the crime rate, while in New York:
"Twenty years ago most criminologists and sociologists would have doubted that a metropolis could reduce this kind of crime by so much. Although the scale of New York City's success is now well known and documented, most people may not realize that the city's experience showed many of modern America's dominant assumptions concerning crime to be flat wrong, including that lowering crime requires first tackling poverty, unemployment and drug use and that it requires throwing many people in jail or moving minorities out of city centers. Instead New York made giant strides toward solving its crime problem without major changes in its racial and ethnic profile; it did so without lowering poverty and unemployment more than other cities; and it did so without either winning its war on drugs or participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the nation."
I repeat the crime rate went down without "throwing many people in jail," and without "participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the nation."
The "Jane Crow" Era, where a man's rights in family court are secondary to a woman's. The Federal Courts, via Supreme Court Precedent, like to assert that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Family Law. Who in their right mind, other than a lazy corrupt, malicious and incompetent Judiciary, would ever relinquish their Constitutional Due Process Right when it CONCERNS EVERYTHING in your life from your house, to your little league baseball glove, to your family heirlooms, to your own flesh blood your children!!!!!!!!!! It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Today to COVER their own exposed posterior they assert the SOPHISTRY of a "stringent standard of fault" with "difficult problems of proof" to cover up their own blatant actus reus and mens rea with their assertion of absolute immunity for the malice, corruption and incompetents of "all persons that were integral in their Judicial Process"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 is manifest UNEQUAL protection of the law in open violation of the 14th Amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!! Per the ruling in Connick the first 4 victims +/- have no redress-able grievance for the denial of rights but the 5th victim +/- has redress-able grievance rights? It is a criminal conspiracy to cover up malice, corruption and incompetents. Any organization that allows 5 violations in a row on the same issue is not only malicious criminal and incompetent in each of those violations, but mind-bogglingly STUPID. It is CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to cover up random acts of malice, corruption and incompetents at We the People's expense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As long as the acts are random, not repeated 4 +/- in row, there is no REDRESSABLE GRIEVANCE. Congress can not lawfully abridge a redress of grievances, but the Supreme Court can rule, they are not bound by the constitution. The first 4 victims have no First Amendment protection. It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me where my logic is WRONG?
"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. Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871.
I realize it sounds crazy it sounds euber-emphatic but…
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 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" 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 06, 2011, 9:35:49 AM, 2011 08-05-11 The Idea of Nine Persons Unaccountable to any electorate Ruling a DEVEL-OPED DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY Is absurd in the MODERN world today Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 4-46-22 PM REV 00.doc
 The only accountability We the People have is the EUBER-EMPHATIC process of IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: March 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
 The illegal judicial preference for a Mother's (woman) rights over a Father's (man) rights with the UNEQUAL protection of the law.
 "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house." "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, 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
 The standard restated in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) requires the innocent victim in their deprived state, be it incarcerated, indigent or just deprived on the street to find multiple other victims who have had their rights deprived in similar repeated and timely situations by the same perpetrator before JUSTICE can applied for in the original victims case. Unequal Protection of the law, the first 4 victims +/- have no redress-able grievance for denial of rights but the 5th victim +/- has redress-able grievance rights?
 Per the ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 the first 4 victims +/- have no redress-able grievance for denial of rights but the 5th victim +/- has redress-able grievance rights?
 Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
 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"
 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
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316