Friday, August 5, 2011

What do “We the People” gain from immunity[1]? I forgot “We the People” are 5 times more likely to be in Jail!


What do "We the People" gain from immunity[1]?
We are 5 times more likely to be in Jail!
The FLAW in American Justice
Friday, August 05, 2011, 9:17:50 AM

What do We the People gain from immunity?  The Supreme Court has tried to convince us that We the People get a smooth operating Judicial Process.  I do not doubt that a bit!!!  Without liability for Due Process of Law, without liability for competency, without any resistance to malice and corruption there is no barrier to a smooth operating Judicial Process.
But, is a smooth operating judicial process worth the cost.  Is the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[2] a very dear price to have to pay?
I for got, in the United States of America, We the People, are 5 times more likely to be in jail.  "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."[3]  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  To illustrate further support on the positive side of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[4] statistics revealing a spectacular crime drop in the Big Apple throughout the 1990s and 2000s — I cite  "How New York Beat Crime" as described by Franklin E. Zimring in the August 2011 issue of Scientific American:
"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."
Was not the raison d'etre for our constitution the desire to establish Justice with "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[5] with Due Process of Law?  Is not "absolute immunity" "before out of court[6]" the abrogation of Due Process of Law?   Without Due Process of Law, without our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[7] We the People can not defend our life liberty or property without a resort to violence?  Civilization's raison d'etre is to establish law and order in the place of unrestricted chaos and violence.

With "absolute immunity" for all persons integral in the
Judicial Process.
We the People lose EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
We the People gain NOTHING!!!!!!

The Supreme Court hopes to COVER-UP their malice, corruption and incompetence, blatant actus reus and mens rea, with BULLSHIT i.e., sophistry.  The Supreme Court freely and unashamedly admits actus reus and mens rea[8] with their criminal conspiratorial grant of absolute immunity, before out of court,[9] as it protects the "malicious or corrupt judge."[10] That is to say also the "malicious or corrupt" Prosecutor,[11] Police and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."[12] I quote from the legal precedent Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[13] @ Page 80 U. S. 349:
"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")
"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. 547 (1967)) non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).[14]

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."[15]  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"[16] without ANY hope of redress of grievances.[17]
They took my son, they took my home, they took my liberty[18] 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,[19] 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 Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581 and as referenced in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983):
"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,[20] 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..."[21] (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," [22] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional, "unlawful Conspiracy,"[23] "before out of Court"[24] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [25] 
The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others "Absolute Immunity."[26]  The United States Constitution repeats itself twice in proclaiming, "No Title of Nobility[27] shall be granted by the United States[28]" and "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.[29]

We the People lose EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
We the People gain NOTHING!!!!!!

 "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. [30]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[31]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[32]
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,[33]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[34] 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"[35] 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)
Friday, August 05, 2011, 9:17:50 AM, 2011 08-05-11 What do We the People gain from immunity - 5 times the rate of incarceration REV 99RX.doc


[1] "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"
[3] "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
[6] 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."
[8] "It is a principle of our law 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" Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349.  "to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[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."
[10] 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)
[11] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity")
[12] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[13] 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.
[14] 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))
[17] 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."
[18] As documented in 8th District United States Federal Court of Appeals Cases, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614.
[19] 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."
[20] 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!!!!!!!!!
[21] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[22] "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
[23] 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."
[26] "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
[27] There was not in 1776 and there is not NOW any titular value in Nobility apart from immunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[28] Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"
[29] Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility"
[31] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[33] 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"
[34] 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.