Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The Bork nomination was not the start of the CONFIDENCE issue for the Supreme Court!

    
The Bork nomination was not the start of the CONFIDENCE issue for the Supreme Court!
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[1] is ever truly safe."[2]
Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 9:35:38 AM

     The nomination of Robert Heron Bork in 1987 was NOT the start of the Supreme Court's issues.  The confidence issue started in 1868 when the Supreme Court attempted to enshrine themselves as absolute immune RULERS of "We the People."
     To assert that any Supreme Court Precedent i.e., Randall v. Brigham 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 523 (December term 1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) could sub silentio overrule constitutional guarantees, the applicable Statute Law, that had been recently enacted § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985)., and the un-contradicted common law as pronounced in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Page 5 U. S. 163, is corruption, malice and  insanity of the highest order!!!!!
     ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud by any standard of Justice in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!! 
     ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud by any standard of Justice in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
     The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[4] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[5] "before out of Court"[6] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[7]
     "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. [8]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[9]. 

Impeach the Judiciary FIVE[10]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[11]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[12] 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"[13]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[14] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[15] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
     Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!!  I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years.  I have suffered through 411 of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations.  I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and 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, October 26, 2011, 9:35:38 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
(314) 514-5228



[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child (or a thief) with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[4] "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
[5] 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."
[9] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[11] 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" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
[12] 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.
[13] "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
[15] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina, and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina jury, the State of South Carolina, through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment."  Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178)


--
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