Where is Immunity defined or conferred in We the People's
Laws or Constitution for the United States of America?
IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was, in 2003, an upper middle class, middle aged, white, educated male. I actually literally went to the Old Boys School. I had a solid successful 25-year career under my belt. I had a smart, athletic son. I drove new cars. I lived in a former display home in one of the best lake home developments around. You might say I had it all. I know, I had naiveté; I believed I had the rights guaranteed me under the Constitution of the United States.
I have none of that anymore. I am homeless. I am forced to communicate with my son via e-mail, the telephone is too expensive. I can only afford a bus ticket occasionally to see my son. A car, a home, even Birthday presents, Christmas presents, this will be the FOURTH year, none of those.
You ask why???? What happened? A couple of judicial officers acting outside the bounds of Due Process of Law; a couple of judicial officers acting outside the bounds of their jurisdiction; acting maliciously, corruptly and dishonestly over my and my attorney's timely, consistent and unrelenting OBJECTION, in unequivocal denial of my 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law and JUSTICE, took everything from me.
You add to that a couple of police officers acting outside the bounds of their jurisdiction, their competency, with the assistance of a criminal conspiracy including three prosecutors and two more judges all criminally acting outside the bounds of their jurisdiction to cover-up the aforementioned ineptitude. And I the victim am left to deal with enormous losses, money, irretrievable time with my son, literally my life's blood, the criminal ramifications and the ongoing denial of my unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see all those acting under color of law, have immunity from the only means of redress a Citizen has to redress the denial and regain his civil rights, The common law of 1803 has been superseded by a skewed reading of a corrupt ruling from a corrupt court that asserts "and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption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"
What did I do wrong? You tell me. I made timely pertinent objections every step of the way. I made timely pertinent motions every step of the way highlighting the issues. I made timely sincere erudite appeals every step of the way (I have now been through to the Supreme Court of the United States 4 times in 8 years). No one is accusing me of stealing. I have never owned a gun. I have never hit anyone, I have never even threatened to hit anyone. No one has ever even accused me of so much as name-calling.
You say, that cannot happen, this is America. We have a Justice System "We the People" established via our Constitution. Everyone is entitled to justice with "Due Process of Law." Everyone no matter race, sex, color, creed or national origin, EVERYONE has the Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law. I was naïve, I use to believe that too. I spent $80,000 pursuing an appeal because I once believed that we had unalienable rights.
We do not have rights in the United States of America. We are subject to the tyranny of the black robed royalist Guild of Judges. The Guild of Judges can literally do as they please, order what they please, where they please, and when they please. We are forced to comply because again the common middle class citizen, without a politically correct action committee or the uber-emphatic representation of a death row inmate or a confessed Guantanamo Bay terrorist has no enforceable rights. The Guild of Judges have established "absolute immunity" for themselves and others as relates to our rights.
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised
under cover of law, and with the colors of justice"
A judge that steps outside of Due Process of Law to issue an Order has negated his jurisdiction. A Judge has the obligation to indeed adjudicate, but only subsequent to fair Due Process of Law. If a Judge in the United States of America rules without having seen to Fair Due Process of Law, said Judge has violated the Constitution of the United States of America i.e., specifically in my case the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and injured the denied party.
"I acknowledge that transgressors must be punished for conduct that violates legal standards, but I place a restriction on this abstract theory: those who receive society's commission to go forth and capture transgressors may not themselves transgress. A free society can exist only to the extent that those charged with enforcing the law respect "the law and the rights of it's citizens" themselves."
"If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution" from those wrongfully convicted and denied their rights.
But as a practical matter, such cases are beyond the reach of our Legal/Justice system. Neither the politics nor the economics of law practice permits lawyers to pursue such cases nor makes them affordable except to a small wealthy group of citizens. The Guild of Judges has unconstitutionally and illegally awarded and maintained "absolute immunity" for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were (malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent or gave "knowingly false testimony" as) integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." The Guild of Judges is more powerful than the Constitution of the United States of America.
There is no Justice in our courtrooms today
only the prostitution and sophistry of the law.
Again, "Where is Immunity defined or conferred in the Constitution of United States of America??" I maybe blind, but I do not see it. I know that when you allow anyone immunity from the consequences of their actions, they will indulge their own private prejudice and whimsy to affect the ends they desire regardless of the consequences, because there are no consequences for those who can lay title to immunity.
Time is of the essence.
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," by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy" "before out of Court" to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."
"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.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871.
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE
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
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour," denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people. We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," "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 28, 2011, 10:24:24 AM, 2011 11-28-11 originated 2008 11-28-08 Where is Immunity defined or conferred in the Constitution of United States of America.doc
 Phones have gotten cheaper in 3 years, this was from a comment made in 2008. I have 250 minutes now on a mobile phone per month, 8.333 minutes per day.
 "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…" (Page 5 U. S. 163) "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." (Page 5 U. S. 163) AND "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 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)
 U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir.1982) "the law and the rights of it's citizens" was substituted for "it" in the original text for clarity in this reference.
 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928), Justice Brandeis Id. at 485, 48 S.Ct. at 575.
 Incompetence is the most insidious of evils; it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
 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.
 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."
 Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
 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
 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.
 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 (or now the State of Missouri) 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 (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), 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 (or now the State of Missouri) 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 (or now the State of Missouri) 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) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
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
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316