What do "We the People" gain from immunity[1]?
The FLAW in American Justice
Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 10:39:56 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!!!
BUT…
We the People lose EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
We the People gain NOTHING!!!!!!
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?
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"[3]… with Due Process of Law? Is not "absolute immunity" "before out of court[4]" 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,"[5] 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, with blatant actus reus and mens rea, with BULLSHIT i.e., sophistry. The Supreme Court freely and unashamedly admits actus reus and mens rea[6] with their criminal conspiratorial grant of absolute immunity, before out of court,[7] as it protects the "malicious or corrupt judge."[8] That is to say also the "malicious or corrupt" Prosecutor,[9] Police and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."[10] I quote from the legal precedent Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[11] @ Page 80 U. S. 349:
"This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,[12] 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" (non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).
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."[13] 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"[14] without ANY hope of redress of grievances.[15]
They took my son, they took my home, they took my liberty[16] 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,[17] 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,[18] 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..."[19] (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," [20] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional, "unlawful Conspiracy,"[21] "before out of Court"[22] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [23]
The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others "Absolute Immunity."[24] The United States Constitution repeats itself twice in proclaiming, "No Title of Nobility[25] shall be granted by the United States[26]" and "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.[27]"
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. [28] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[29].
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[30]
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,[31]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[32] 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"[33] 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, September 21, 2011, 10:39:56 AM, 2011 08-02-11 What do We the People gain from immunity 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"
[4] 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."
[6] "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)
[7] 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] 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)
[9] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity")
[10] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[11] 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.
[12] 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"
[15] 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."
[16] As documented in 8th District United States Federal Court of Appeals Cases, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614.
[17] 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."
[18] 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!!!!!!!!!
[19] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[20] "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
[21] 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."
[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] There was not in 1776 and there is not NOW any titular value in Nobility apart from immunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[26] Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"
[27] Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility"
[29] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[30] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[31] 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"
[32] 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