Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Am I the only one that can see it?

Am I the only one that can see it?
You would think the Supreme Court could see it?
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[1] is ever truly safe."[2]
Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 11:20:44 AM
      The ministerial[4] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[5] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[6] "before out of Court"[7] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[8]
      There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[9] i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
      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 government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
      I sometimes feel like the waif in the old Danish parable "The Emperor's New Clothes"[10] am I the only one that can see it?  NO one in the United States of America has any more or less rights than any other.  Judges do not make law. The only body capable of making law is the Congress with or without the President's consent / veto. 
      We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to SECURE and indemnify each other's EQUAL inalienable rights as the supreme Law of the Land.   I quote from The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph:
      "This Constitution, and the Laws[11] of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties[12] 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"[13]
Any and ALL common law was thus made subordinant to This Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.  To eliminate all Comon Law would have left the colonist with no detailed law at all at ratification, the Common Law of England as of 1788 was adopted as a matter stare diesis to fill in the voids but in NO case to overide the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
      The applicable common law as written into binding Supreme Court precedent in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshal quoting the Commentaries on the Laws of England,[14] the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone:
      "It is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says,
      "I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." (emphasis and underlining added for clarity) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)
That is the governing stare diesis as regards the Common Law. 
      As regards the Statute law we have § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act[15] (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[16] (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985).  I quote § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242) here:

      "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, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping[17] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,[18] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."


      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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
During the debates on the original statute criminal law § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, judicial immunity was specifically addressed.  Point in fact President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill specifically noting that it would make Judges liable to it March 27, 1866.[19]  The Congress on April 9, 1866 over ruled his veto an enacted the statute as written almost immediately, thus confirming the validity of the law and the congressional statute intent to make Judges and "Whoever" liable to it.
      Per Supreme Court the Government's attorney is to be held to a standard of ethical behavior. 
"The United States Attorney is the representative 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, he is 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. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his 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 prosecuting attorney, 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."  Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
      As regards the government's taking real property "without just compensation" the Government can be held liable. I again quote Supreme Court precedent:
      "In this connection, many cases of imaginary evils have been suggested if the contrary doctrine should prevail. Among these are a supposed seizure of vessels of war, invasions of forts and arsenals of the United States. Hypothetical cases of great evils may be suggested by a particularly fruitful imagination in regard to almost every law upon which depends the rights of the individual or of the government, and if the existence of laws is to depend upon their capacity to withstand such criticism, the whole fabric of the law must fail…
If this constitutional provision is a sufficient authority for the court to interfere to rescue a prisoner from the hands of those holding him under the asserted authority of the government, what reason is there that the same courts shall not give remedy to the citizen whose property (or rights) has been seized without due process of law and devoted to public use without just compensation?
      Looking at the question upon principle and apart from the authority of adjudged cases, we think it still clearer that this branch of the defense cannot be maintained. It seems to be opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, must be determined. In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (corrupt, malicious and incompetent) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime." United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 218 (1882)
Now I see little or no difference between property rights and civil rights as regards an unauthorized taking.  I have to ask?

Where is the Moral Difference,
given a corrupt judge and a thief with a gun?
      You tell me where is the moral difference, given a corrupt Judge and a thief with gun?[23]  One use a gun to get what he wants the other corrupts the authority of the state to get what he wants.  To the victim is there any difference in the outcome?  The victim is illegally deprived of something of value either way.  The means and methods may be a little different but the lingering effect of the public humiliation of a Judge's well-regarded, although ill-deserved, actions can do every bit if not more damage emotionally than a thief with the short-lived threat of violence.  Do either the corrupt judge or the thief with a gun have any moral authority? 
NO!!!!!!!!!!!
      The Judiciary asserts that credibility / moral authority is associative, that the corrupt Judge must be immune from prosecution because of his association.  That has proven to be a false premise as regards the Kings.  The KING can do wrong!  We the People thought we disposed of it with our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and with the ratification our Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land in 1788.  
Yet one, the thief with gun, can be thrown in Jail for life, in some cases executed, and other, a corrupt Judge, cannot even be prosecuted!!!!  I use the example of a Judge as a starter, but the official acting under color of law could be a judge,[24] a prosecutor,[25] a police person[26] or any or "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."[27]
      Now why can't the person acting under color of law be prosecuted?  We the People have written a constitution that incorporates We the People into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to assure We the People the protection of our enumerated rights, specifically here the 5th and 14th Amendment's protection of Due Process of Laws and the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition our government for a redress of grievances[28] as the Supreme Law of the Land.  We the People have statute law that assures us it is a crime punishable by prison, fines and civil liability for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[29]
      Why can't the person acting under color of law be prosecuted?  Because the Supreme Court and the present and prior Presidents of the United States have ministerially[30] granted and sustain "absolute immunity" for the crimes[31] and the civil liability.[32]  "Absolute immunity" as sustained and maintained by our courts and our excutives in the United States of America today, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy"[33] "before out of Court"[34] to obfuscate theirs and others "false and malicious Persecutions" [35] under color of law.
      I quote from the current ministerally created Supreme Court Precedent that is and has been sustained by President Obama and past Presidents as executives in charge of the prosecution of crimes:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967). "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress (i.e., Justice) against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of libertyImbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976). "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983).
The Supreme Court first addressed immunity nearly 100 years after the ratification of the constitution, 1788, with Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871).  That immunity was never an issue before only adds to the suspect timing of these two rulings, 1868 and 1871, immediately post Civil War.  They were both in obvious if not deliberate conspiratorial response to the § 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) respectively.  During the congressional debates on § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act judicial criminal liability was discussed and assented to by the congress.  Point in fact President Johnson vetoed the bill specifically noting that it would make Judges liable to it.[36]  The Congress on April 9, 1866 almost immediately over ruled his veto, thus confirming the validity of the law and the constitutionally authorized congressional intent to make Judges liable to it.
      Furthermore both Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) find their basis in a skewed reading of a 260 year old common law precedent Floyd and Barker (1607) from a subsequently acknowledges corrupt court, the Star Chamber,[37] and ignore prior Supreme Court established precedent for the common law, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803), and We the People's RECENT legislature's STATUTE LAW intent with § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act[38] and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[39] to make the "Whoever,"[40]  "Every person"[41] and specifically the Judiciary liable. [42] 
      Now in common law times, before our Constitution, there was very little law written down; it was not "reckonable"[43].  The law was whatever the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants said it was.  And admittedly in common law times you could not hold the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants criminally or civilly liable.  There were two reasons, the first was that per the divine right of the king, the King nor his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants could do anything wrong.  They were all acting in the name of the King and to wit "The King can do no wrong."[44]  And secondly by the very intrinsic nature of an UNWRITTEN law, the giver of the law, whoever that be, as the source of the ill-defined law could not offend themselves.
      But this all changed, with the written, published and ratified Constitution for the United States of America.  With the Constitution for the United States of America We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to SECURE each other's "reckonable"[45] inalienable rights.   The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph:
      "This Constitution, and the Laws[46] of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties[47] 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"[48]

We the People with our Constitution asserted or PREFERENCE for the WRITTEN "reckonable"[49] law as the supreme Law of the Land.  At least that is what We the People thought[50] we did.  With a written constitution We the People sought to established the essential and fundamental requirement missing from the Common Law "reckonabilty."[51]  Predictability, or as Justice Antonin Scalia asserts, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."[52]  Immunity of any kind is repugnant to the rule of law and the "reckonabilty" of the law by definition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sophistry run Amuck

      Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best "We have long 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.[53]"  Thomas Jefferson was referring to the Judiciary's approval of the Alien and Sedition Acts that had voided freedom of the speech press and assembly (1798-1800), during John Adam's Presidency.  When Thomas Jefferson became president he pardon all those that had been charged or held under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
      One need only look at the Civil Rights Act 1876, "That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement" and compare it to Civil Rights Act 1964 We the People again said "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation."  The only substantive difference is the Supreme Court with their Sophistry unrestrained chose to void the Civil Rights Act 1876 and then just as capriciously chose NOT to void the Civil Rights Act 1964.  We the People saw the problem when we passed the Civil Rights Act 1876.  But We the People could not enact a law that was needed and useful on our own; we had to endure 100 years of the Supreme Courts Sophistry FIRST!!!! If the Supreme Court's sophistry had not gotten in the way we could have avoided 100 years of Jim Crow Era, racial unrest and persecution. 
      An ill-advised reverential consideration of our Judges has to this day, to our own determent, empowered the self-serving royalist judge made law of Judicial Immunity.[54]  Judicial immunity, by way of the ill-defined sophistry trick bag in stare diesis, can literally do anything unchecked.  We the People, have no enforceable rights in America "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process[55]" have "Absolute Immunity" for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[56] Criminals[57] can randomly rob an innocent victim, criminals can randomly kidnap your children, criminals can randomly Murder the innocent victim.  And there is not a DAM thing anyone can do about it.  The Supreme Court requires[58] that the innocent victim, to receive substantive justice for the crimes perpetrated against the innocent victim, must first prove that the criminal, under color of law, has done the same thing to multiple other innocent victims in a timely and consistent pattern of obvious stupidity before he or she can be held accountable for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[59] from the innocent victim.
      The Jane Crow Era[60], "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
      fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating,[61] and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect… It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."[62] 
      The innocent victim whose children have been kidnapped whose entire life's possessions have been stolen has no recourse for redress of grievances.  It is the act of a Judge.  Black Robed Judges can do no wrong in the Royalist American version of the justice system.  Just ask the Kings, the Supreme Court[63] of the United States of America.  "Immunity is given to crime,[64] and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.[65]" "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical[66] to the impartial administration of law and equity.[67]"
      The Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule Era, I refuse to believe our Judicial Process is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world.  With the ubiquitous use of the plea bargain, innocent victims are offered little hope to clear their names against a stacked deck before the evidence is even revealed, "Either you plea out before trial or we go for the MAXIMUM!"  "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.[68]" Our Royalist Judicial Process has been allowed to run amuck unchecked for TOOO long.  We have no IDEA.  It scares me to think how many INNOCENT people may currently be incarcerated that have been denied their constitutional rights.  Rights that would have cleared their name, denied by immune CRIMINAL[69] attorneys persecuting innocent victims, not prosecuting, in our justice system, or wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[70]  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  It scares me to think how many men have been emotionally, financially and physically torn from their own flash and blood in the Jane Crow era.   I REFUSE to believe that our criminal Justice system is 5 times better!!!!  I am FORCED by the PRECEDENT of personal experience to think that 4 out of 5 of the current persons incarcerated in American prisons today as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have likely had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      To further their cause of a Royalist Justice system, the Supreme Court has created The Exclusionary Rule to cover up their crimes at the expense of We the People.  The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process[71] can do no wrong.  The Royalist Judicial Process in America would prefer to let known criminals go free rather that accept criminal and civil responsibility for their criminal actions, under color of law.[72]  They set up a royalist system of deterrents that allow criminals acting under color of law to act without personal regard to their actions; We the People are forced to cover up Judicial Process's criminal actions by accepting the KNOWN criminal back into our midst.  It is INSANITY!!!!   The Exclusionary Rule is compensation to the criminal for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[73]
      As verified in Bivens, "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."[74]
      "We the People" have to take back the unchecked power to fabricate self-serving Judge made law out of "sophistry."  The Judiciary is and has been criminally[75] using their "sophistry" to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the establishment of Justice,[76] We the People[77] sought for "ourselves and our Posterity."
      "We the People" do not have the substantive right to Justice between the Government and the People that instigated the Declaration of Independence's repeated petitions for redress.  "We the People" do not have the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment. 
      "We the People" are at the mercy of the judges and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.[78]"  They can deprive "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[79] under color of law and there is nothing "We the People" can do about it short of nearly impossible euber-emphatic requirements of Impeachment,[80] Revolution or War. 
      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,"[81] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[82] "before out of Court"[83] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[84]
      "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. [85]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[86]. 

Impeach the Judiciary FIVE[87]
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,[88]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[89] 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"[90]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[91] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[92] "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)
Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 11:20:44 AM, 2011 11-01-11 Combined REV 01

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 e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq -  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] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.  For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with tenor of the commissioner under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[5] "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
[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."
[9] You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
    There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law?  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[10] "The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Kl├Žder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages.[1]
[12] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[13] Emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[14] The Commentaries on the Laws of England are an influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. The work is divided into four volumes, on the rights of persons, the rights of things, of private wrongs and of public wrongs.
[15] The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted April 9, 1866, is a federal law in the United States that was mainly intended to protect the civil rights of African-Americans, in the wake of the American Civil War. The Act was enacted by Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. 
[16] Originally enacted April 20, 1871
[17] My son was KIDNAPPED with the original corrupt COURT ORDER in
[19] Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
[20] "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
[22] 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
[23] Although not as emotionally compelling the same argument holds for an incompetent Judge and a child with a gun. 
[24] "Immunity" Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) ( Judicial Immunity as it specifically relates to Civil Rights Statute Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for the nonconsensual sterilization of a health minor child ), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for having sent the US Marshall's out to physically drag an attorney into court.)
[25] "Immunity" Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity")
[26] "Immunity" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" Police for perjured testimony)
[27] [27] "Immunity" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process")
[28] That any grievance would need to be Justifiable goes without saying. 
[30] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.  For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with tenor of the commissioner under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[33] 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."
[36] Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
[37] In 1641, the Long Parliament, led by John Pym and inflamed by the severe treatment of John Lilburne, as well as that of other religious dissenters such as William Prynne, Alexander Leighton, John Bastwick and Henry Burton, abolished the Star Chamber with an Act of Parliament, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640.
[38] Now codified into the U.S.C. as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
[39] Now codified into the U.S.C. as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985
[40] Now codified into the U.S.C. as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
[41] Now codified into the U.S.C. as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985
[42] Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."  The veto was overridden April 9, 1866.
[43] "Predictability, or as Llewellynn puts it, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, "The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule" The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[44] William O. Douglas dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 565 (1967) "Historically, judicial immunity was a corollary to that theory. Since the King could do no wrong, the judges, his delegates for dispensing justice, "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co.Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng.Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607). Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall. 523, 74 U. S. 539."
[45] Ibid.
[47] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[48] Emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[49] "Predictability, or as Llewellynn puts it, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, "The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule" The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[54] Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ 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"), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[55] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[57] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or 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, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[58] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), "difficult problems of proof;" I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.
[60] The "Jane Crow" Era started with the over funded witch hunt "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 1974 P.L. 93-247 (CAPTA).
[61] In psychology, the term refers to the inability to maintain defense mechanisms in response to stress, resulting in personality disturbance or psychological imbalance.  In times of extreme inescapable stress the psyche shuts down as its only defensive mechanism.
[62] "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, "Hitting below the belt" 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
[63] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), high standards of proof; I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.
[64] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[65]DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871
[66] Amendment 1, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[67] DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871
[68] "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, 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
[69] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[70] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "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."
[71] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[72] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[74] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410
[75] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[76] Justice is the end of government, it is the civilized society
[77] "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." The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[78] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[80] Euber-emphatic Impeachment requires the nearly IMPOSSIBLE task of overriding a FILLABUSTER in the Senate
[81] "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
[82] 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."
[86] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[88] 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
[89] 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.
[90] "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
[92] 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