To whom it may concern
I am at loss; I have been fighting this evil for more than 7 years now. I am not sure how much longer I can hold on. I have contacted you before, not sure you are listening or if you even care.
Please let this letter stand as proof that for one brief shining moment there was a man who stood up to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, criminal, corrupt, malicious, incompetent, venerated, en-Nobled, conspiracy of Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary, even though he carried no weapons.
President Barack Hussein Obama Chief Justice John G. Roberts
The White House Supreme Court of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20500-0001 Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Is martyrdom and the Justice of heaven the only hope "We the People" have?
Dear Barrack and John,
You AGAIN apparently did not take me seriously in my prior communications addressed as above, dated Thursday, January 13, 2011 and Wednesday February 23, 2011, Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al. I am DEAD serious the EVIDENCE of your corruption is online.
You want to say you have bigger fish to fry with the Earthquake in Japan, balancing the budget, the unrest in Libya and the Middle East, and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10-98) "USA Patriot Act", Kentucky v. King (No. 09-1272) "Searches" and Connick v. Thompson (09-571) "DUE PROCESS" already on the docket.
BUT I SAY TO YOU, "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, or until life and liberty be lost in the pursuit."[1] Immunity by definition is diametrically opposed to Justice and the Rule of Law. The "Absolutely Immune" person cannot be brought to Justice!!!!!!!!!!! The "Absolutely Immune" person cannot be brought to heel by the Rule of Law.
We need to learn from mistakes and make remedial efforts to correct them rather than obfuscate and COVER-UP mistakes with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL corrupt, malicious and incompetent veneration and en-Nobling of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have literally nothing left to lose!!!!!!
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
by U.S. Mail, Wednesday, March 16, 2011
David G. Jeep
cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
file - Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 16:33:22 PM
enclosure
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.
Justice is the end of government.
It is the end of civil society.
"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, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[2] To pursue Justice "We the People" democratically established our Constitution, The Bill of Rights and laws. "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."[3]
Justice by means of the protection of the laws was, is and should be an inviolable right in any civilized democratic country of free and equal persons.
Yet we do not have Justice in America today. We do not have the protection of the laws in America today. We are not even pursuing Justice by means of the protection of the laws in America today. "We the People" are forced by ministerial rule to venerate and enNoble our government officials with "Absolute Immunity" "for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[4] EVERYONE in the venerated and en-Nobled Government of "We the People" in America today, from the traffic cop to the President of the United States with quasi-judicial authority under color of law, has "Absolute Immunity" "for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[5] Our venerated Government has no enforceable responsibility to "We the People" to provide "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[6]
"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[7] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[8]
That is the governing ministerial rule in the United States of America today. "Absolute Immunity" for all, empowers all those acting under color of law to disregard "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9] and supercedes the expressed intent of the Constitution and Statute law.
That seems contrary to what Alexander Hamilton had in mind with The Federalist Paper #78 in 1788:
"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. No legislative (judicial or executive) act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. 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..."[10]
The Supreme Court created their ministerial rule in 1868, just post Civil War. 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." Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868)
At the behest of President Ulysses S. Grant during reconstruction in the post Civil War south, the Klu Klux Klan was asserting seemingly overwhelming power, congress discussed judicial liability in debate as documented in Supreme Court precedent,[11] the Congressional Record[12] and then passed The Civil Rights Act of 1871.
"Representative Shellabarger, the author and manager of the bill (The Civil Rights Act of 1871) in the House, explained in his introductory remarks the breadth of construction that the Act was to receive:
"I have a single remark to make in regard to the rule of interpretation of those provisions of the Constitution under which all the sections of the bill are framed. This act is remedial, and in aid of the preservation of human liberty and human rights. All statutes and constitutional provision authorizing such statutes are liberally and beneficently construed. It would be most strange and, in civilized law, monstrous, were this not the rule of interpretation. As has been again and again decided by your own Supreme Court of the United States, and everywhere else where there is wise judicial interpretation, the largest latitude consistent with the words employed is uniformly given in construing such statutes and constitutional provisions as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people."[13]
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 § 1 -- the forerunner of § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights unchanged was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate then signed into law by the President Ulysses S. Grant as proposed. It has remained unchanged:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…"
The Supreme Court responded later that same term, over the legislature's assertion of "Every person ('s)" liability,[14] with their ministerial assertion of judicial immunity in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) :
"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, 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)[15]
This ministerial rule was based on the 264-year-old Royalist's English common law RESULT in Floyd and Barker (1607), the Judge was excused. Absolute Immunity is not what Lord Coke described in his record of Floyd and Barker (1607). The Judge, per the Supreme Court, was excused because of the supposed excerpted assertion, "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." The Supreme Court for self-serving reasons in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) gave no credence to the exception noted in Lord Coke's textual record in Floyd and Barker (1607); "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." The Supreme Court gave no credence to the assertion of judicial culpability addressed by Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607) and in the legislative debate[16] at the enactment of The Civil Rights Act of 1871:
"It is said that, at the time of the statute's enactment, the doctrine of judicial immunity was well settled, and that Congress cannot be presumed to have intended to abrogate the doctrine, since it did not clearly evince such a purpose. This view is beset by many difficulties. It assumes that Congress could and should specify in advance all the possible circumstances to which a remedial statute might apply and state which cases are within the scope of a statute.
"Underlying [this] view is an atomistic conception of intention, coupled with what may be called a pointer theory of meaning. This view conceives the mind to be directed toward individual things, rather than toward general ideas, toward distinct situations of fact, rather than toward some significance in human affairs that these situations may share. If this view were taken seriously, then we would have to regard the intention of the draftsman of a statute directed against 'dangerous weapons' as being directed toward an endless series of individual objects: revolvers, automatic pistols, daggers, Bowie knives, etc. If a court applies the statute to a weapon its draftsman had not thought of, then it would be 'legislating,' not 'interpreting,' as even more obviously it would be if it were to apply the statute to a weapon not yet invented when the statute was passed.""[17]
In Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), Butz v. Economou, 438 US 478 (1978), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) and Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) the only reasoning independent of the 1607 Royalist's assertion of Nobility in Floyd and Barker (1607) was:
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"[18] and would be "harassed by vexatious actions"[19]
I have to agree, if we subject anybody or anything to "the degradation of private prosecution" we degrade them, "we subdue their independence and destroy their authority."
That is begging the question, a logical fallacy, petitio principii, "assuming the initial point". They assert that "private prosecution" is always "degradation." "Private prosecution" when consistently and judiciously directed is not degradation but remedial and edifying. "Private prosecution" is "vexatious" "degradation" when it is maliciously, corruptly, haphazardly or incompetently applied. Since Judges are the ones to apply it. Are Judges incriminating themselves with their assertion, "private prosecution" is always "vexatious" "degradation???"
We need to force our Judiciary to accept the limitation of their humanity, give up their malicious and corrupt assertion of veneration and en-Noblement and do the bidding of "We the People…" JUSTICE under the law.
"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..."[20]
"Chief Justice Cockburn long ago (1869) disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:
"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)."[21]
"A judge is not free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity."[22]
"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."[23]
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 of Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary.
There is no dispute on the facts of Jeep v. United States of America. Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones and my ex-wife, knowingly over my timely motions and objections, acting in a criminal conspiracy held me to answer an infamous charge with out any "probable cause." Officers Little and Taylor gave false testimony, knowingly over my timely motions and objections, on the Stand UNDER OATH on an infamous charge. Judges Bennett and Collier acting in a CRIMINAL conspiracy with Prosecuting Attorneys Ledom, Rives and Icenogle to DEPRIVE me of exculpable material,[24] knowingly over my timely motions and objections, on an infamous charge. The Missouri State's Attorney General, Governor of Missouri, United States Attorney, FBI, USMS and the ENTIRE Federal Court System, District to Supreme, has let it stand, KNOWINGLY, over my constant PROTESTATION the uncontestable PROOF of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, criminal, corrupt, malicious, incompetent, venerated, en-Nobled, conspiracy of Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary.
I have endured nearly 7 ½ years (2,690 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[25] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America. [26]
Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get your attention, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi? It is only a matter of time, if not me then someone else. We are not the CRAZY people. Those that would venerate and ennoble the Royalist Black Robed Judges beyond their human capabilities in a constitutional democratic Government that specifically prohibit titles of Nobility.[27]
"We the People" do not have any enforceable individual 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."[28] We still in the time of Jim Crow and Jane Crow when the Police, the Prosecutors and the Judges all conspire with a depraved deliberate indifference to rights e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process.
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/), Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 16:33:22 PM
[1] "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.
[2] "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.
[3] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
[10] The Federalist No. 78, The Judiciary Department Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton non-italic parenthetical text added for clarity
[11] "The position that Congress did not intend to change the common law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said, and that judges would be liable." William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 561
[12] ibid.
[14] "The congressional purpose seems to me to be clear. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute was intended to rectify. It was often noted that "[i]mmunity 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. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." Id. at 394. Page 386 U. S. 560 Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who,"by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)
[15] (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[16] "The position that Congress did not intend to change the common law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said, and that judges would be liable." William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 561
[19] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[21] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967) Justice William O. Douglas dissenting.
[22] 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.
[23] Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) @ Page 445 U. S. 656.
[24] "Brady v. Maryland - DUE PROCESS."
[26] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[27] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
