Monday, November 14, 2011

Defending Power for the Sake of POWER

Defending Power for the Sake of POWER
 "A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[1] is ever truly safe."[2]
Monday, November 14, 2011, 10:58:13 AM

     "I am not interested in power for power's sake, but I'm interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good." Martin Luther King Jr.
     In a Democracy of Free and EQUAL people, power is a means to end, the common good.  Our Judiciary is currently involved in defending power for the sake power.  Our Supreme Court has LOST sight of it's constitutional limitations and is defending their asserted need for personal prerogative and absolute self serving power as superseding their commission of delegated authority "under this Constitution, the Laws[4] of the United States, and Treaties made,[5] or which shall be made, under their Authority."[6]
     "This immunity applies even when the judge (or all persons integral in the judicial process) is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against (any or all persons integral in the judicial process) a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler 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 (any or all persons integral in the judicial process) police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)   In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were (malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent[7] or gave "knowingly false testimony" as) integral parts of the judicial process" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and Supreme Court Precedent:
     "(I)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."
     "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."[8]  "It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone)
     "This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,[9] 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 "We the People" 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"  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349, Footnote 11.
     "It is a principle of our (The Supreme Court's not "We the People's") 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 ("We the People" being robbed and disenfranchised) are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit ("We the People" being robbed and disenfranchised) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" (to the Supreme Court our RIGHTS are "vexatious actions") Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 349 (non-italic parenthetical text and emphasis added for clarity).

     Thomas Jefferson politely called it sophistry;[10] today we call it pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! 
     The assertion of absolute power that acknowledges and requires malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed JUSTICE and the COMMON GOOD!!!!
     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[11] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[12] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[13] "before out of Court"[14] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[15]
     "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. [16]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[17]. 

Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[18]
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 current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[19]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[20] 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"[21]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[22] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[23] "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 days 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)
Monday, November 14, 2011, 10:58:13 AM, 2011 11-14-11 Defending Power for the Sake of POWER REV 01.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 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
[5] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as adopted by the United Nations  on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977: PART II, Article 2, Section 3
[6] The limitation on Judicial Authority as stipulated in the Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section. 2. (ratified June 21, 1788.)
[7] Incompetence is also a result even if not enumerated.  Any act, incompetent or not, can be justified by malice or corruption.
[8] Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone
[9] 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"
[10] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions 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."  The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[11] 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 the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[12] "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
[13] 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."
[17] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[19] 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
[20] 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.
[21] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[23] 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." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples."  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