The Sophistry of Supreme Court Precedent
Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Monday, December 12, 2011, 12:14:47 PM
Thomas Jefferson said it in 1810 "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 argument in Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704 is all smoke, mirrors, and misdirection both the police and the judge are criminally and civilly liable, though none can be or will if the Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE has its way be held accountable!!!!!!!
It is Common Sense, "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence," as Alexander Hamilton stated it MOST clearly 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… 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."
A judge, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission CANNOT award themselves absolute immunity from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid?"
The current issue in Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704 before the Supreme Court is who, if anyone, to hold responsible for an over reaching ADMITTEDLY, BY ALL PARTIES, openly unconstitutional search warrant. The Respondent, Millender, is defending the lower judicial court's ruling that the Police should be held exclusively responsible for the application for and enforcement of the over reaching ADMITTEDLY, BY ALL PARTIES, openly unconstitutional search warrant.
The Petitioner, Messerschmidt, is asserting Absolute Immunity for the police based on two factors, first the police were acting under the authority of the a Judge. A Judge had ordered the OVER REACHING ADMITTEDLY, BY ALL PARTIES, openly unconstitutional search warrant. And because the police were acting under a Judges authority they should not beheld liable. And secondly the Petitioner, Messerschmidt, asserts absolute immunity for the police the result of prior Supreme Court precedent affording Police and / or "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" absolute immunity for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 
The liberal wing of the Supreme Court asserts the police SHOULD be held liable, discounting the involvement of the judge. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court asserts the police should not be held liable because of their absolute immunity and because they were acting under the authority of an absolutely immune judge.
With either solution "We the People" are denied the protection of the law. Both parties, the police as applicants for an OVER REACHING ADMITTEDLY, BY ALL PARTIES, openly unconstitutional search warrant should be held criminally and civilly liable for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" and the Judge who signed the OVER REACHING ADMITTEDLY, BY ALL PARTIES, openly unconstitutional search warrant should be held criminally and civilly liable for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"
Both parties in the warrant the applicants and enforcers, the police, and the authorizers, the judges, acted "contrary to the tenor of the commission under which" their authority is granted. They violated the trust of "We the People" by exceeding their authority with the OVER REACHING ADMITTEDLY, BY ALL PARTIES, openly unconstitutional search warrant.
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, 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, law and equity, 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."
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my writing, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571), Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145),  Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98) and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425). The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, December 12, 2011, 12:14:47 PM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
 "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.
 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
 SYKES v. UNITED STATES 564 U. S. 7 (2011) SCALIA, J., dissenting United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979), Page 442 U. S. 123, United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113
 The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
 Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 7th Amendment's reference "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" assures an justice as regards equity.
 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
 The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
 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.
 See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
 "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "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
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