“Never
negotiate with terrorists.
It
only encourages them.”
The
FLAW in American Justice
Tuesday,
August 02, 2011, 4:26:55 PM
We the
People live in a time of judicial
terrorism. The saddest thing is most of us do not even KNOW
IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We the People, as naive unsuspecting
individuals, have not as yet been randomly selected by the corrupt, malicious
and incompetent Judicial Process. You see as long as the criminal,
corrupt, malicious and incompetent conspiracy keeps itself hidden in its
randomness, the limited liability of the recent ruling in Connick,
District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 covers
everything up.
We the
People fought a revolutionary war to get
rid of the TERRORIST’s infallible, immune, all-powerful, and unimpeachable
pronouncement of law by the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of
his servants.
We the
People as represented by a majority of
both house of congress and the President of the Untied States of America passed
into law the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act
(1876). We the People never wanted
SEGREGATION. The Supreme Court in a CORRUPT, MALICIOUS, TERRORIST
and INCOMPETENT assertion of their would-be omnipotent OPINION OVER-RULED We
the People and forced us into 100 years of racial unrest and Jim
Crow lynchings by declaring the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act
(1876) unconstitutional with the Civil Rights Cases, 109
U.S. 3 (1883).
We the
People created what we still rightfully,
though naively, believe to be the Supreme Law of the Land:
“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.”[2]
to limit the corporate acts of our
government. We the People, our judges and our government were thus
incorporated to “be bound thereby” and liable to and for “This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made as the supreme law of the land?”
Somehow judicial TERRORIST have now
become capable of immune all-powerful WOULD-BE unimpeachable pronouncement of
law? Justice requires that The Rule of Law swing both ways
and protect both the individual from the majority’s illegal wrath and society
at large from the individual’s illegal acts. JUDICIAL TERRORIST oppose
the establishment of Justice,[3]
in direct denial of the constitutional intent to “establish Justice.”
The obvious uninhibited BULLSHIT[4]
of the Supreme Court’s judicial terrorist precedent asserts that to constrain
the Judges, Prosecutors, Police i.e., “all persons -- governmental or otherwise
-- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[5]
within the limits of “any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[6] is
impossible, liability for “rights” is too limiting.
The Judges, Prosecutors, Police i.e., “all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[7]
can not “exercise their functions”[8] or “do their duty”[9] if they are asked to take on the incorporated governmental
civil and individual criminal liability for performing their “functions”[10] or “duty” [11] within the limitations of “any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America.”[12] I may
not be a lawyer but that sounds like the Supreme Court is at war with the
constitution, in essence saying the constitution is unenforceable?
The Supreme Court hopes to obfuscate
their malicious and criminal intent with, BULLSHIT, sophistry. The
Supreme Court admits that their conspiratorial grant of absolute immunity, before
out of court,[13]
protects the “malicious or corrupt judge.”[14]That
is to say also the “malicious or corrupt” Prosecutor,[15]
Police and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process”[16]:
“This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of
a malicious or corrupt judge,[17]
but for the benefit of (“We the People” 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) exercise their
functions with independence, and without fear of consequences" (Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335
(1871)[18] @ Page 80 U. S. 349 non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).
What do We the People gain from immunity[19]?
We the People
lose EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
We the People
gain NOTHING!!!!!!
We the
People are deprived of the protection of
life, liberty and property with “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[20] We
the People are ROBBED, victimized and left at the discretion of ANY and
ALL of the corrupt, malicious and incompetent “persons that were integral
in the Judicial Process”[21]
without ANY hope of redress of grievances.[22]
They took my son, they took my home,
they took my liberty[23]
and I am suppose to just capitulate because they have conjured up out of
BULLSHIT, sophistry and nothingness this corrupt, malicious and incompetent
grant of Absolute Immunity????????
The more modern attempt at
justification of Absolute Immunity, before out of court,[24]
comes from Judge Learned Hand. I say that almost tongue in cheek but the
real name of the much-honored ignorant judicial terrorist is Judge Learned
Hand. Judge Learned Hand on immunity:
“The justification for doing so (the
grant of immunity) is that it is impossible to know whether the claim
is well founded until the case has been tried (This is an outright lie
or at best a false statement, the prosecutors and Judges get unfounded claims
and dismiss cases all the time for lack of evidence. That is part of the
job as professionals in the judicial process.), and that to submit all
officials,(only the ones for whom “probable cause” can be substantiated)
the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the
inevitable danger (Where is there “inevitable danger” in a
credible system of JUSTICE?) of its outcome would dampen the ardor (I
unabashedly want to dampen the ardor of those that would maliciously, corruptly
or INCOMPETENTLY persecute the innocent) of all but the most resolute,
or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties (their
duties are based on and empowered by the grant of power with the prerequisite
of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States of America). Again and again the public interest calls
for action which may turn out to be founded on a mistake,[25]
in the face of which an official may later find himself hard put to it to
satisfy a jury of his good faith. There must indeed be means of punishing
public officers who have been truant to their duties, but that is
quite another matter from exposing such as have been honestly mistaken to suit
by anyone who has suffered from their errors. 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...”[26]
(Non-italic parenthetical editing and emphasis added)
This entire argument is sophistry,
false on its FACE, it asserts as a premise “There must indeed be means of
punishing public officers” the complete opposite of what it concludes “it
has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs”
i.e., immunity for “public officers.”
The
TERRORIST ministerial grant for terrorist ministers and by terrorist ministers
of “Absolute Immunity,” [27]
is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional, “unlawful
Conspiracy,”[28]
“before out of Court”[29]
to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [30]
The Justice Department, The
Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or
others “Absolute Immunity.”[31]
The United States Constitution repeats itself twice in proclaiming, “No Title
of Nobility[32]
shall be granted by the United States[33]”
and “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.[34]”
“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. [35]
Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in
1871[36].
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,"
[38] denying the establishment of
justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th
Amendment[39] 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”[40] 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)
Tuesday, August 02, 2011, 4:26:55
PM, 2011 08-01-11 Never negotiate with terrorists REV 99RX.doc
[1] Antonin
Scalia, Clarence
Thomas, Samuel Alito,
Anthony Kennedy, and
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[3] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble to the Constitution
for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788.
[4] Thomas Jefferson would politely say sophistry: “We have
long enough suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in
one judge and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is
nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry
into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.” The
Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler
Monticello, May 26, 1810
[13] 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.”
[14] 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”), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12
(1991) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in
the Judicial Process)
[16] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that
were integral in the Judicial Process)
[17] It should be noted that it protects the “malicious or
corrupt judge” i.e., “Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were
integral in the Judicial Process”
[18] 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 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.
[19] “Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in
the Judicial Process” 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”), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12
(1991) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 325 (1983) “Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in
the Judicial Process”
[22] Constitutionally secured First Amendment lawfully un-abridge-able
right: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[23] As documented in 8th District United States Federal Court
of Appeals Cases, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614.
[24] 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.”
[25] Any professional should be able to competently handle
emergency exigent circumstances; but in such cases “Good Faith” could be the presumption.
But because immunity is, before out of court, emergency exigent
circumstances, good faith, bad faith, overwhelming proof is never even an
ISSUE!!!!!!!!!
[27] “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
[28] 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.”
[31] “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
[32] There was not in 1776 and there is not NOW any titular
value in Nobility apart from immunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[33] Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph “No
Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”
[37] Antonin
Scalia, Clarence
Thomas, Samuel Alito,
Anthony Kennedy, and
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[38] 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"
[39] 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.”
