The Essence of Civilization - Vicarious Liability[1] for Rights
The cause for IMPEACHMENT of Five Supreme Court Justices[2]
for verifiable BAD BEHAVIOR
Friday, April 01, 2011, 4:28:22 PM
The Constitution for the United States of America
The very essence of Civilization requires secured liability for rights, privileges, or immunities. Civilization's raisons d'etre is to take responsibility for the establishment, enforcement and confirmation of rights. From the very first cave person to modern society the essence of Civilization is and has been at a minimum to achieve the same goal "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.[3]" For any civilization and/or our Constitutional government to attempt to deny responsibility for rights is to deny its raisons d'etre… again the responsibility for the Justice establishment, enforcement and confirmation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[4] Without established, confirmed and secured liability for rights, privileges, or immunities We the People revert back to nature's anarchy, survival of the fittest, to get the undeniable and instinctually irresistible right to Justice.
Where do we go to get our Rights, if the courts have Absolute Immunity for the denial of our rights? Do We the People have to get guns to defend our rights from those acting under color of law? Do we go to the Safeway in Tucson? The Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma? Maybe the Texas School Book Depository building in Dallas? Gettysburg? Is our only hope heaven like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
John Thompson's rights were denied most recently by the Supreme Court FIVE in the Ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571. The Supreme Court acknowledged the deprivation of Thompson's rights in the facts of the case. My rights have been denied (Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America (10-1947), Jeep v Jones (07-11115)). Rights are IGNORED everyday in the United States of America because NO ONE HAS any civil or criminal liability for rights. The Supreme Court has on several occasions acknowledged and confirmed the corruption, malice and incompetents of the criminal denial of rights without providing redress. The denial of the rights is not the issue. The constitutionally assured redress for the grievances, Vicarious Liability[5], for the denial of rights is the ONLY issue.
We the People do not pay tribute to a King for the privilege of being alive. We pay TAXES to our government to CONTRACTUALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEE and take complete unfettered responsibility, and thus Vicarious Liability,[6] for "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[7] Who do we go to for rights unless the Government?
The Supreme Court Five[8] want to duck this liability to make their life more profitable and maintain and or increase the power and position for themselves and their brethren, the Guild of Black Robed Royalist Judges. The Supreme Court profits in two ways first with a lightened workload, they do not have to consider and adjudicate as many issues with a blanket grant of immune irresponsible power to their subordinates, the Guild of Black Robed Royalist Judges and second, and I think more importantly, to enable the weapon of unrestricted TERROR and intimidation for the brethren, the Guild of Black Robed Royalist Judges.
My rights have been denied. In seven years the facts of the case are undisputed. "I was falsely and maliciously arrested and persecuted on an infamous charge by two incompetent[9] police officers. I was thrown in jail by a judge[10] without probable cause much less proof of any wrongdoing. My now ex-wife conspired with two Judicial officers, [11] one of limit unrelated subject-matter jurisdiction, to hold me on an additional infamous charge again without any probable cause much less proof of any wrong doing." I was convicted of the false and malicious persecution with false testimony by the police in front of the jury over my timely motions, objections and ONGOING protestation of the verifiable TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no dispute as to the facts the issue arises as to a remedy. I have no money. I lost my son, my home, my Father's good name was sullied; I lost EVERYTHING I ever held dear!!!!! I have endured over 7 ½ years (2,667 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[12] (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 for redress, Jeep v. United States of America.[13] They tell me in spite of the First Amendment's assurance; I have no redress. The criminal perpetrators all have immunity. Justice does not require a shibboleth. I have communicated the undisputed facts accurately. Justice, as an intrinsic unavoidable liability of any credible government, civilization or constitution, ought to take exception to the malicious, corrupt and criminal conspiracy against rights as currently albeit randomly applied. If I had had the misfortune to be an approved minority, I could claim the emotional support of discrimination but this criminal conspiracy against rights is more insidiously and criminally focused on its unquestioned power. This criminal conspiracy acts randomly, maliciously, corruptly, and unconstitutionally to further its goal of TERROR. I was randomly selected by the criminal conspiracy against rights for terror and intimidation.
In the United States of America we do not have secured liability for rights. Under the Constitution for the United States of America. In the writing of the Constitution for the United States of America We the People decided DEMOCRATICALLY to take responsibility for each other's rights. But we do not live under the Constitution of the United States of America. We the People live under the rule of Five[14]. The Supreme Court has awarded "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[15] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[16] This is a random unconstitutional criminal conspiracy against rights. We the People thought to have constitutionally GUARANTEED OUR RIGHT "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, but we are not all allowed that Constitutional right under the Rule of Five. The randomness of this conspiracy obscures the insidious criminal nature of the conspiracy.
This is not about specifics, the Supreme Court will concede the constitutional violations; this is about constitutional liability for the VIOLATION. Clearly by including the First Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" it was intended that the Government of We the People would take vicarious liability[17] for rights. I mean where else would one go to establish rights, one's dentist, maybe the gardener? It is ridiculous to assert that anything other than the Government is solely responsible for rights and therefore, because We the People pay taxes for the service vicariously liable[18] as well.
This is a Supreme Court sanctioned anarchical attempt to destroy the essence of our democratic civilization of free and equal person's, RIGHTS. Why would We the People submit to the Rule of Law, pay taxes, if the government does not provide the reciprocal Protection of the Law, our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[19] as a benefit?
How could any group of persons peaceably cohabitate the same space unless they were guaranteed the security and protection of agreed rights, privileges, or immunities? Nature's survival of the fittest will revert without civilization's guarantee of secured rights, privileges, or immunities. That is what we pay taxes for. We have a constitutional, contractual and financial agreement with the Government!!!!!! We pay taxes for our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[20] as the Supreme Law of the Land (Legem Terrae).[21] We do not pay tribute to the King, we pay taxes for our Government to INSURE and GUARANTEE our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[22]
When we lived under the rule of the sovereign, we had no "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[23] We paid tribute to the King for the privilege of living in his or her realm. We lived at the Monarch's discretion, without a right of redress. When we threw off the divine right of kings we established our Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[24] and provided for justice arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States.[25]
Thomas Paine said it first and best "in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other".[26] Just like the Kings of old, the Law / The Constitution as King does not afford anyone immunity, it was and is intended to be egalitarian to all; there is no elite ruling class protection, i.e. immunity for a select few. I quote from Justice John Marshall Harlan dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U. S. 559 (1896), "in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."
Immunity of some, by definition, is repugnant to Equality, the Rule of Law and Justice. Immunity is repugnant to the constitutional assertion in Article III Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Judicial Power is not immune from or above the Constitution; they are to operate under this Constitution. Immunity renounces the Supreme courts reason for being to administer Justice under the law. Immunity is inherently repugnant to Justice and the rule of law. The immune person cannot be brought to justice!!!!!!!!! The immune person cannot be brought to heel by the rule of law!!!!!! Immunity therefore is REPUGNANT to both Justice and the Rule of Law.
The proponents of Immunity say it is necessary to insure an independent Judiciary. But there is a LIMIT to that independence, The Constitution for the United States of America.
Who in the world wants to empower the Judiciary to be
INDEPENDENT of or IMMUNE to Constitutional Law?
Why have a Constitution if we are not going to hold the Judiciary to it. Why have any written law at all if we are going to award "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[27] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[28] Alexander Hamilton said it long ago "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"[29]
To award Immunity makes life easier for a LAZY Supreme Court, they do not have to review lower courts to set precedents but that is not what We the People asked for or authorized in our Constitution and laws. Again Alexander Hamilton "To avoid an arbitrary discretion (of a blanket immunity) in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them" [30]
"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. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
For reference, I think telling, excerpts from the recent Supreme Court Ruling
"As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a"stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392."
So are all species of error routinely[31] confronted by prosecutors: authorizing a bad warrant; losing a Batson[32] claim; crossing the line in closing argument; or eliciting hearsay that violates the Confrontation Clause. Nevertheless, we do not have "de facto respondeat superior liability," Slip Opinion OCTOBER TERM, 2010 CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011, SCALIA, J., concurring, page 2
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." (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/)
Friday, April 01, 2011, 4:28:22 PM 2011 03-30-11 The Essence of Civilzation REV 02 .doc
[1] "Vicarious Liability" is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability.
[2] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[3] The IV Amendment to Constitution for The United States of America
[5] "Vicarious Liability" ibid.
[6] "Vicarious Liability" ibid.
[8] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[10] Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, see letter to the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges dated Wednesday October 8, 2003
[13] 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 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[14] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[17] "Vicarious Liability" ibid.
[18] "Vicarious Liability" ibid.
[21] Article. VI., 2nd paragraph This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme legem terrae (law of the land); and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[24] Article. VI., 2nd paragraph This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme legem terrae (law of the land); and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[25] Article III section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America
[26] Common Sense By Thomas Paine Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
[29] "The Judiciary Department" The Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
[30] "The Judiciary Department" The Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
[31] They admit routine erros.
[32] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
--
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur 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
