Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Where do “We the People” go for the PROTECTION of the LAW?

Where do "We the People" go for the PROTECTION of the LAW?[1]
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[2] is ever truly safe."[3]
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 1:39:46 PM

     Where do "We the People" go for the PROTECTION of the LAW?  Where do "We the People" go for Justice when their delegated authority for Justice, acts contrary to Justice; contrary to the tenor of the commission, under which the authority is exercised, to sanction injustice?  For example a blanket grant of Absolute Immunity to "malicious or corrupt" judges,[5] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [6] forced sterilization / genetic engineering,[7] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8] and FINALLY absolute immunity for all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[9] "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[10] to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid" to wit the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11]
     It is just Common Sense, "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence,"[12] as Alexander Hamilton stated it unquestionably 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."[13]
How then can a judge, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves absolute immunity from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid?" That is to say immunity for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[14]
That is in essence what happened with Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) just post Civil War 1868 & 1871.  At first it was just the unequal protection for the civil rights of newly emancipated slaves, but since, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, it has been an all consuming ever-increasing authorization e.g., to "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[15] forced sterilization / genetic engineering,[16] malicious or dishonest" prosecutors, [17] and FINALLY absolute immunity for all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[18] "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[19] to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid" to wit the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[20] for EVERYBODY!!!!!  Civil Rights are NOT "vexatious actions"[21] or "continual Calumniations"[22] they are what "We the People" call the judicial process's… the Justice Department's job!!!
I use the example of Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" because the facts of the admittedly fictionalized case are well known though not without truth.  A lot of people ask "what rights was Tom Robinson denied?" [23]  Tom Robinson was denied Justice in the form of the denial of Due Process of Law.  Tom Robinson was denied the good faith efforts of those constitutionally responsible for the administration of our system of JUSTICE, the sheriff, the prosecutor and the Judge.  They should have all worked in UNISON to investigate the alleged attack and exposed the inconsistent racially biased allegations for the bold face FRAUD that it was "before out of court"[24] so as to avoid for "We the People" racially based "vexatious actions"[25] or "continual Calumniations."[26]
BEFORE Tom Robinson was even ARRESTED;
and WELL before being brought to TRIAL.
Tom Robison should never have EVEN been brought to TRIAL!!!!!!!!!!  The same can be said of the admitted and NOW confirmed CORRUPT, MALICIOUS, DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT[27] arrest and persecutions of Mr. Thompson,[28] Mr. Smith,[29]  Mr. al-Kidd[30] and myself in USCA8 No. 11-2425.[31]
     The sheriff/police, the prosecutor and the Judge have pretrial professional responsibility in ALL CASES to investigate the credibility of the allegation to avoid "vexatious actions"[32] or the possibility of "continual Calumniations"[33] for "We the People."
     Judges in particular are granted broad powers to the ends of Justice to avoid "vexatious actions"[34] or the possibility of "continual Calumniations"[35] for "We the People."  When those broad powers are used corruptly, maliciously, dishonestly and incompetently[36] their innocent victims, Mr. Thompson,[37] Mr. Smith,[38]  Mr. al-Kidd[39] and myself in USCA8 No. 11-2425.[40], should be afforded proper redress for the injury / grievance as established by the 1st Amendment,[41] Supreme Court (1803) precedent, stare decisis, and in the COMMON LAW of ENGLAND (1766), even before our Declaration of Independence, "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." [42]
     But "We the People" are not allowed to DEMAND a good faith effort from our judicial process.  "We the People" are not allowed to even demand JUSTICE.  "We the People" are forced in REAL LIFE EVERYDAY, see Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[43] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [44] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98), [45] Ms. Millender (No. 10-704),[46] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425),[47] to accept BLINDLY without question the absolute immunity of our Judicial Process's corruption, malice, dishonesty and incompetence[48] i.e., "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." [49]
     "We the People" under the corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[50] rule of the current and past Supreme Court FIVE's[51] precedent, stare decisis, are forced EVERYDAY to accept "False and malicious persecutions"[52] "before out of court"[53] all over America by a blanket grant of absolute immunity to "malicious or corrupt" judges,[54] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [55] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[56] and all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[57] "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [58] acting under color of law. [59]
TODAY Justice cannot be established in the United States of America!!!!
     TODAY Justice cannot be established in the United States of America!  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[60]  And if you have to ask why, "We the People's Judiciary, have ministerially[61] awarded themselves and others absolute immunity[62] from the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[63] i.e., a blanket grant of Absolute Immunity to "malicious or corrupt" judges,[64] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [65] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[66] and all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[67] "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [68] acting under color of law
     ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[69] 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[70] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[71] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy" [72] "before out of Court"[73] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[74]
     "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. [75]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[76]
     In every stage of these Oppressions I have petitioned for redress[77] in the most humble terms: My repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, A group of Judges or Judicial Process whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.[78]

Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[79]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[80] 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,[81]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[82] 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"[83]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[84] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[85] "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 writings, 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),[86] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [87] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[88] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[89]   The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[90] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 1:39:46 PM, 2011 12-08-11 Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void REV 05

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
(314) 514-5228


[1] I ask the question FORMALLY in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United states based on USCA8 No. 11-2425, see also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[2] "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.
[3] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[4] 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] 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) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[6] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[7] IN 1978 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Forced Sterilization, In 1971, Judge Harold D. Stump granted a mother's petition to have a tubal ligation performed on her 15-year-old daughter, whom the mother alleged was "somewhat retarded." The petition was granted the same day that it was filed. The judge did not hold a hearing to receive evidence or appoint a lawyer to protect the daughter's interests. The daughter underwent the surgery a week later, having been told that she was to have her appendix removed.
[9] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[10] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[12] 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
[13] The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[16] IN 1978 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Forced Sterilization, In 1971, Judge Harold D. Stump granted a mother's petition to have a tubal ligation performed on her 15-year-old daughter, whom the mother alleged was "somewhat retarded." The petition was granted the same day that it was filed. The judge did not hold a hearing to receive evidence or appoint a lawyer to protect the daughter's interests. The daughter underwent the surgery a week later, having been told that she was to have her appendix removed.
[17] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[18] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[19] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[23] A widely searched QUESTION on the internet, I use only because everyone is familiar with the facts of the case.  It could be just as well Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011, Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704 or USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[24] Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607)  "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"
[27] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[31] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[36] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[40] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[41] "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[42] Chief Justice John Marshal, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803), quoting Blackstone (February 1766) into Supreme Court stare decisis binding to all that follow.
[46] Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704
[47] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[48] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[49] "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
[50] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[52] 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."
[54] 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) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[55] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[57] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[58] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[59] "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
[60] "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
[61] 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.
[62] "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
[64] 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) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[65] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[67] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[68] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[69] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the wrong they have suffered e.g., 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.
[70] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY… ibid.
[71] "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
[76] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[77] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947, #11-2425  and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[78] Adapted from The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[80] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[81] 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
[82] 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.
[83] "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
[85] 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.
[89] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[90] "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
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316