Equal justice under law[1] - NOT
Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY?
I know this DRIVING ME INSANE!!!!!!!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 4:06:10 PM
I realize foreign TERRORIST[2] combatant's can demand Justice. The ACLU and our acting Solicitor General will work tirelessly to get them justice BUT, I, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, that has been destroyed by TWO infamous unconstitutional false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court[3] without any probable cause much less proof of any wrong doing, DO NOT! My opponents have Absolute Immunity and I have ABSOLUTLY NO uberempathetic virtual representation[4] here. I am a random lone victim of judicial malice, corruption and incompetence, acknowledged[5] and ignored by the Supreme Court FIVE's[6] brand of Justice.
Society, Civilization, Government are all based on agreements between individuals. Individuals formed groups for SECURITY. Groups evolved from Family Groups into Extended Family Groups. Extended Family Groups evolved into societies. Societies evolved into civilizations. Civilizations evolved into Governments. Governments evolved from fiefdoms based on the divine right of Kings into democratically derived constitutional governments of free and equal persons.
At every step along the way from the family group, via the society, the civilization, the King, the Constitutional Democracy the goal has been greater security for the individual. The individual invests in the group with taxes, blood, to get more security. In the animal kingdom the larger the group, the more eyes looking around, the safer the individual feels to put their head down to graze.
That is the same way the development of human associations has progressed. Only instead of just grazing, "We the People" wanted to be able to put our heads down to plant, cultivate and harvest crops, build homes and acquire real estate and personal possessions for ourselves and our prosperity.
Just as in nature the larger the number of individuals the stronger the more secure the group becomes. Once we exceeded the bounds of a familial association we started to gather around and focus on a strong leader, thus the belief and worship of the divine rights of kings. As the inherent flaw of the assertion of human divinity became a limiting factor, "We the People" sought to reach beyond it with democratically derived constitutional agreements of free and equal persons to form ever larger and more durable groups. "We the People" established a constitution. "We the People" wrote down and agreed to enforce and/or protect each other's rights. To enforce and/or protect each other's rights, we sought to establish equal Justice for all under the agreed "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[7] We sought to establish Civil Liberty with our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[8] via the Courts.
This was almost immediately confirmed by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803:
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King[9] himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803) Page 5 U. S. 163
Now "We the People" have had our issues, the most prominent was the basis for the Civil War. A Civil War that is still ongoing today even though "We the People" carry no weapons. "We the People" are still trying to establish our Civil Liberty with equal justice for all without regard to race, religion, sexual orientation, assets, non-criminal association or previous condition of servitude. To do this "We the People" have established and clearly, as I would assert humanly possible, defined Civil Liberty with the enforcement and protection of the law, our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[10]
In 1871 six years after the Civil War (1861-1865) we discovered that "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress" (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871). "We the People" then enacted additional statute law to reinforce the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[11] on the rogue Southern States. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified into Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and… if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.[12]
and
Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress
"Yet even today 2011, as in 1871, "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity" (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871). One need only read the Supreme Courts Ruling in Connick v. Thompson released the end of last month. In both the court's majority[13] opinion and the minority[14] dissent Mr. Thompson's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[15] were acknowledges to have been denied. EVERYONE AGREES as to the facts, Mr. Thompson was denied his rights to Due Process of Law as called for by V and XIV Amendments.[16] He had already acquired his First Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in the District Court via jury. Connick was contesting the equity award in his action Connick v. Thompson. Self ADMITTEDLY Connick had violated both Criminal and Civil Law via the denial of Mr. Thompson's Due Process Right. Now his co-conspirators in the Courts would not prosecute him criminally.
"We the People" do not have the protection of the law by those acting under color of law. "We the People" or subject to the grant of absolute immunity by the Royalist Judiciary:
"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[17] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[18]
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned[19] for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.[20]" A Judge and or Judiciary whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be a Judge of a free people.
The Supreme Court self-admittedly knows better, I quote a REVERED and oft quoted Supreme Court Precedent:
They are "representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, they are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. They may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the state, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none." Due Process of Law as described in Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
There is no Justice in America today. "We the People" have no redress for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[21]. "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shall not ration justice."[22]
How are "We the People" suppose to defend ourselves against this repeated and random assault on the very essence of our Civil Liberty? "We the People" have no individually enforceable "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[23] "We the People" do not have access to the V and XIV Amendments assurance of Due Process of Law. "We the People" do not have access to the peaceful First Amendment Right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Isn't that what "We the People" over threw the King for an unwillingness of address Our repeated Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms? Now granted these deprivations are random and cannot be easily predicted, but I assure they are meant to instill TERROR and our despotically driven. They will not stop until "We the People" again take control of our Government of the People, for the People and by the People.
"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; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
"This provision of the law is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of ("We the People" being denied our rights) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to the Constitution, without regard to any 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)[24]
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void… To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."[25]
When the Judiciary denies a Citizen their constitutionally assured Rights to Due Process of Law[26] and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances with a BLANKET GRANT of absolute immunity:
"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[27] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[28]
Why do we have a CONSTITUTION? Why have we charged our judiciary with Justice under the constitution and laws? Are they allowed to just make it up as they go along without regard to any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws????[29]
Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY?
The need for Justice is instinctual!!!
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 (07-11115))
DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 4:06:10 PM - - 2011 04-13-11 Justice Under the Law for All - NOT Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY REV 01.doc
[1] "Equal justice under law" is a BOLD FACE LIE engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.
[2] Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lead Counsel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
[4] EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1365
[6] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[9] The King with The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, originally established the right of redress and TOOK RESPONSIBILTY for his Judges:
"If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us… to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon" (emphasis, non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity). The assertion that Judges could no wrong because they were answerable only to him is not viable after 1215.
[12] I doubt anyone could disagree with Mr. Thompson's assertion of attempted MURDER: "If I'd spilled hot coffee on myself, I could have sued the person who served me the coffee," he said. "But I can't sue the prosecutors who nearly murdered me."
[13] Supreme Court FIVE - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, & Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[16] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[18] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law
[19] See Jeep v Jones (2007) A Petition for a Writ Certiorari 07-11115, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947 (2010), Jeep v Obama (2011)
[21] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law
[24] (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[25] The Federalist No. 78, "The Judiciary Department" Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
[28] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law
[29] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy 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