In what world is the American
Judiciary living?
NOT "good Behaviour" Further Defined
Monday, April 18, 2011, 4:36:59 PM
The divine right of kings and absolute immunity went the way of the dodo bird (Raphus cucullatus) along time ago. We the People have a constitution to secure and "establish Justice," the Right of Redress, the right to Due Process of Law to mention only a few of the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[1]
Justice was and is of primary importance to all RIGHTS. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice[2]…. "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained." [3] Justice under the law is the purpose of the Judiciary. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.[4]" Clearly the Judicial Power is SUBORDINATE to, that is to say again "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made."
Did not "We the People" write our constitution and clearly establish our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[5] to LIMIT our Judiciary's independent and arbitrary authority?
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. [6]" If you explicitly tell a subordinate to do something and they refuse to do it; IT IS CLEARLY not "good Behaviour."
Alexander Hamilton said in June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America:
"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." [7]
This would clearly be NOT "good Behaviour"
"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."[8]
The Judiciary will tell you that to hold them accountable to "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9] would be to limit their "independence" and open them up to harassment by way of "vexatious actions." I quote:
"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 (although it should be noted that it protects the "malicious or corrupt judge" absolutely), 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 our 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." -- and the leave was refused." (non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis)[10]
To be "malicious or corrupt," to "rob and disenfranchise" "We the People" and to act independent "without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America is clearly NOT "good Behaviour."
In what world is the American
Judiciary living?
"We the People" wrote our constitution and established our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[11] to LIMIT our Judiciary's independent authority? This would almost be laughable in its fallacious assertion if in ACTION the assertion had not criminally empowered Thieves, Kidnappers[12] and Murders[13] to avoid accountability under the law[14] and deny a redress of grievances[15] for the victims.
It is today as it was in 1871, "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). "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)[16]
If "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible"[17] and would be "harassed by vexatious actions"[18]
"As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance, it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation."[19]
I have to agree, if we always subject everyone to "private prosecution" we degrade many, "we subdue their independence and destroy their authority."
Our learned Supreme Court Justices can surely see the LOGICAL fallacy in that assertion. That is begging the question, a logical fallacy, petitio principii, "assuming the initial point". They assume that "private prosecution" of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[20] will be for everyone and always.
The Judiciary forgets its purpose; "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained." [21] Justice under the law is the purpose of the Judiciary. All the police, the prosecution, the Judiciary or anyone integrally involved in the judicial process has to do is competently act with demonstrable good faith as regard "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[22] If the prosecutors had done their due diligence as regards Brady's 23 year old requirement as exculpable evidence, Thompson would have had no issue. If the Police, Prosecutors, Trial Judges, State Appeals Court Judges, Federal Judges, Federal Appeals Court Judges or the Supreme Court Judges in my case had made any attempt at all to credibly match up the pleadings and the NON-EXISTENT evidence to the false charges their would have been no issue in my case.
"Private prosecution" when the Police, Prosecutors and Judges fail in their sworn duties uphold and defend the Constitution and Laws is the only means of achieving Justice. "Private prosecution" when consistently and judiciously directed is not degradation but remedial, reassuring and educational. I will confirm when "Private prosecution" is "vexatious" "degradation" when it is maliciously, corruptly, haphazardly, incompetently or ALWAYS applied. Since Judges are the ones to judicially oversee its just application. Are Judges incriminating themselves with their assertion, "private prosecution" is always "vexatious" and overly cumbersome "degradation???"
We need to force our Judiciary to accept the limitation of their human fallibility, give up their malicious, corrupt and incompetent assertion of veneration and en-Noblement and do the bidding of "We the People," JUSTICE under the law. "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained." [23] Justice under the law is the purpose of the Judiciary.
"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."[24]
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of.
While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged." Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting)."[25]
"A judge is not free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity."[26]
"Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre."[27]
We need to learn from mistakes and make remedial efforts to correct them rather than obfuscate and COVER-UP mistakes with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, criminal, corrupt, malicious, incompetent, venerated, en-Nobled, conspiracy against rights of the Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary.
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/)
Monday, April 18, 2011, 4:36:59 PM 2011 04-18-11 In what world is the American Judiciary Living - NOT good Behaviour Further Defined REV 01.doc
[2] 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. Preamble the Constitution for the United States of America
[3] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[10] (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) 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"), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[12] I assert the conspiracy against rights kidnapped my son in Jeep v Jones 2007 (07-11115), Jeep v United States of America 2010 (10-1947) and now Jeep v Obama 2011.
[13] Mr. Thompson said it in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in his case, Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571.
[14] 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.
[15] The First Amendment prohibits establishes "the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." A civil equity remedy for a right of redress is further assured by Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[18] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[21] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[23] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[24] The Federalist No. 78, The Judiciary Department, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton
[26] MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL and MR. JUSTICE POWELL join, dissenting in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Page 435 U. S. 367. And pointing out the CORRUPTION!!!!!!
Labels: 18, 18USC 241 242, 21st Dist MO Div 65, Immunity, Obama, Supreme Court, The Denial of Due Process
--
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