Thursday, April 14, 2011

Clerk of the Court 51 Day Follow UP Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED dated 2/23/11

Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.    
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: 51 Day Follow UP
       Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED dated 2/23/11[1]
Supreme Court of the United States of America for Original Jurisdiction
       Delivered, March 01, 2011, 11:16 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

Dear People,
        Please acknowledge by return post or preferably email from the Public Information Officer and deliver the enclosed letter to John Roberts' office. 
        I fear there is no accountability for anything anywhere without the uberempathetic virtual representation[2] that we rightly afford foreign TERRORIST[3] combatants but fail to provide NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States of America.  I admit I clearly do not have it. 
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"




David G. Jeep

cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
       file - Thursday, April 14, 2011, 4:03:55 PM
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.    
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: 51 Day Follow UP
       Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED dated 2/23/11[4]
Supreme Court of the United States of America for Original Jurisdiction
       Delivered, March 01, 2011, 11:16 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

Dear John,
        I realize you require a shibboleth[5] and since I do not have it and I am not a member of the in crowd you are probably not even listening.  I am indigent, homeless and virtually powerless.  I have only my computerized cave wall to defend myself with.  I do not have access to the uberempathetic virtual representation[6] that we humanely afford foreign TERRORIST[7] combatants.  I am one of those non descript people that were born and raised in the United States of America but do not have the pacific protection of the law to easily enforce the inalienable individual rights we were born to and VESTED with as a birthright by the Constitution of the United States of America.
        I contacted you as referenced above.  I have not heard from you.  I realize you think yourself to be ministerially some sort of anointed god that does not have to acknowledge those of us Americans that are not currently among the favored few, the in crowd.  Because of that I can only pity you and those like you. 
         Nonetheless and for the record, I pacifically seek the protection of the law, my rights as defined by the first amendment's constitutional assurance of my congressionally and judicially unfettered equity right to justifiably[8] petition the Government for a redress of grievances, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Now I realize you and your CORRUPT, MALICIOUS and I assert INCOMPETENT brethren, the black robed royalist judiciary, assert you are above the constitution.  That you can make MINISTERIAL law that denies the Citizens of the United States of America their individual vested inalienable rights. 
         I read the laughable opinion in Connick v. Thompson, which you signed your name to.  You assert that we are not entitled vested inalienable individual constitutional rights, which our constitution[9] clearly provides for.  You unconstitutionally, maliciously, corruptly and incompetently assert that we some how have to prove that the violation is a considered repeated act of an ongoing focused criminal conspiracy and not just the singular random act of a despotic, corrupt, malicious and incompetent conspiracy against rights, such as yours.
           I am sending this through the Clerk's office so that there might yet be a paper trail that further points to your ongoing corrupt, malicious, and incompetent conspiracy against rights of you and your Black Robed Royalist judicial brethren.[10]
            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"




David G. Jeep

cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
       file - Thursday, April 14, 2011, 4:04:22 PM



[2] EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1365
[3] Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lead Counsel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
[5] Something about an obscure reference to an Extraordinary Writ?
[6] EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1365
[7] Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lead Counsel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
[9] See the Constitution's repeated reference to the Person, not some ill-defined group reasoned and selected by some despotic malicious, corrupt and incompetent conspiracy against rights.
[10] It might be wise for you to consider the Grounds for Impeachment I have published to secure sources outside the United States of America. (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/04/grounds-for-impeachment.html )


--
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
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." Individual Constitutional Rights have become Too Inexpedient to Guarantee


"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals
are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress."
Individual Constitutional Rights have become
Too Inexpedient to Guarantee
Thursday, April 14, 2011, 9:25:58 AM
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON  No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011
The Supreme Court recently confirmed in Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-57 with their ministerially created Law that individuals no longer have the guarantee of any enforceable "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[1]  They say it is too much trouble to enforce an individual's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[2]
To get an individual's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[3] enforced, the individual has to show that several other people have had their "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[4] denied in timely and similar circumstances by the same responsible party acting under color of law.  No one has any responsibility at all to the INDIVIDUAL to assure a person's INDIVIDUAL "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[5] 
To get the constitutional enforcement of "We the People's individuals "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[6] you have to prove, at your own expense, that the offending party acting under color of law has committed the same CRIME several times to several other individuals before it becomes an enforceable CRIME and Equity loss to you.  People have been lynched, destroyed and humiliated by this way of thinking without protection of their constitutionally SECURED INDIVIDUAL "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[7]   
This is insanity!  "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, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871)
Per the Supreme Courts majority[8] in Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-57 as long as the party acting under color of law acts randomly with their malice, corruption and incompetence as regards "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9] it is acceptable to the current majority[10] of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 
Now this interpretation of constitutional law goes against the inherent spirit of the Constitutionally assured Federal Government's responsibility for the enforcement of rights per the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:

Fourth - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
and
Fourteenth - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now after the Civil War, "We the People" passed The Civil Rights Act of 1871 to assure the newly emancipated persons their INDIVIDUAL "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,"[11] now codified into law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and… if such acts include kidnapping[12] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,[13] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
and
Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983: 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
Both Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 appear even today to assure the individual person that they have individually enforceable rights vested in the PERSON, not the group, not the association, not the race, not the sexual orientation, not the previous condition of servitude. 
"We the People" wrote our Constitution in terms of the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, the person.   But, that is not the way the self-serving Supreme Court of the United States of America sees it.  They are not interpreting the law they are AT WAR WITH THE CONSTITUTION and are attempting to change constitutional via their judicially order MINISTERIALLY MADE LAW.
It is STILL as declared on April 1, 1871 by Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, "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)
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/)
Thursday, April 14, 2011, 9:25:58 AM -- 2001 04-14-11 Constitutional Rights have become Too Inexpedient to Guarantee REV 00.doc


[12] I assert that the conspiracy against rights KIDNAPPED my son, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court Jeep v Jones (07-11115)





--
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
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice? Bad Behaviour!


What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Bad Behaviour!
Friday, April 15, 2011, 4:19:51 PM
A Supreme Court Justice’s “Grounds for impeachment” is and I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America, Article III., Section. 1.,  “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”
Alexander Hamilton said it first and best in June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist No. 78, The Judiciary Department:
“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.”
            Criminal Behaviour is clearly Bad Behaviour!  I quote from the FBI’s Civil Rights CRIMINAL Statutes web page:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping[1] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,[2] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Clearly to any sane person John Thompson’s Due Process rights were denied most recently by the Supreme Court FIVE[3] in the ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571. The Supreme Court FIVE[4] incriminated themselves by acknowledging the deprivation of Thompson’s rights in the facts of the case from 1985. 
The Supreme Court FIVE[5] then went on to deprive Mr. Thompson of his ALREADY established and confirmed, by A JURY, CONSTITUTIONAL equity rights for redress of grievances for the self-acknowledged bad acts by Connick, District Attorney, et al.
The Supreme Court FIVE[6] confirmed and assumed criminal liability for Connick, District Attorney, et al’s. bad acts, they then added additional criminal liability of their own criminal actions by denying Thompson’s suit in equity rights ALREADY established by a proper proceeding for redress in the lower court. 
Clearly to any sane person the Supreme Court FIVE’s[7] actions were both criminal Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 & 242 and unconstitutional a denial of Due Process (V and XIV Amendments) and the equity right to a redress of grievances (First Amendment).
If we ever want our RIGHTS as declared by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America to be respected by those acting under color of law, we have to hold ALL those acting under color of law accountable to the CONSTITUTION and LAWS of the United States of America for their Good Behaviour.  The Supreme Court FIVE’s[8] actions clearly violated the constitutionally assured rights of Mr. Thompson, by their own admission, and thus confirmed their BAD BEHAVIOUR.  Their BAD BEHAVIOUR was motivated for self serving reasons to preserve their grant of ABSOLUTE POWER to themselves and “for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[9]”

The Constitution for the United States of America shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.

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/)
Friday, April 15, 2011, 4:19:51 PM 2011 04-1511 What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice REV 00.doc





[1] Supreme Court FIVE has clearly aided and abetted the KIDNAPPING of my SON (Writ of Certiorari Jeep v Jones 07-11115)
[2] Mr. Thompson said it in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in his case, Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571.
"If I'd spilled hot coffee on myself, I could have sued the person who served me the coffee," he said. "But I can't sue the prosecutors who nearly murdered me."
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Equal justice under law[1] - NOT Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY? I know this DRIVING ME INSANE!!!!!!!

Equal justice under law[1] - NOT
Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY?
I know this IS DRIVING ME INSANE!!!!!!!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 4:06:10 PM

I realize foreign TERRORIST[2] combatant's can demand Justice.  The ACLU and our acting Solicitor General will work tirelessly to get them justice BUT, I, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, that has been destroyed by TWO infamous unconstitutional false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court[3] without any probable cause much less proof of any wrong doing, DO NOT!  My opponents have Absolute Immunity and I have ABSOLUTLY NO uberempathetic virtual representation[4] here.  I am a random lone victim of judicial malice, corruption and incompetence, acknowledged[5] and ignored by the Supreme Court FIVE's[6] brand of Justice.
Society, Civilization, Government are all based on agreements between individuals.  Individuals formed groups for SECURITY.  Groups evolved from Family Groups into Extended Family Groups.  Extended Family Groups evolved into societies. Societies evolved into civilizations.  Civilizations evolved into Governments. Governments evolved from fiefdoms based on the divine right of Kings into democratically derived constitutional governments of free and equal persons.
At every step along the way from the family group, via the society, the civilization, the King, the Constitutional Democracy the goal has been greater security for the individual.  The individual invests in the group with taxes, blood, to get more security.  In the animal kingdom the larger the group, the more eyes looking around, the safer the individual feels to put their head down to graze.
That is the same way the development of human associations has progressed.  Only instead of just grazing, "We the People" wanted to be able to put our heads down to plant, cultivate and harvest crops, build homes and acquire real estate and personal possessions for ourselves and our prosperity. 
Just as in nature the larger the number of individuals the stronger the more secure the group becomes.  Once we exceeded the bounds of a familial association we started to gather around and focus on a strong leader, thus the belief and worship of the divine rights of kings.  As the inherent flaw of the assertion of human divinity became a limiting factor, "We the People" sought to reach beyond it with democratically derived constitutional agreements of free and equal persons to form ever larger and more durable groups.  "We the People" established a constitution.  "We the People" wrote down and agreed to enforce and/or protect each other's rights.  To enforce and/or protect each other's rights, we sought to establish equal Justice for all under the agreed "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[7]   We sought to establish Civil Liberty with our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[8] via the Courts. 
This was almost immediately confirmed by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803:
"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[9] 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. 137(1803) Page 5 U. S. 163
Now "We the People" have had our issues, the most prominent was the basis for the Civil War.  A Civil War that is still ongoing today even though "We the People" carry no weapons.  "We the People" are still trying to establish our Civil Liberty with equal justice for all without regard to race, religion, sexual orientation, assets, non-criminal association or previous condition of servitude.  To do this "We the People" have established and clearly, as I would assert humanly possible, defined Civil Liberty with the enforcement and protection of the law, our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[10]  
In 1871 six years after the Civil War (1861-1865) we discovered that "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, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871). "We the People" then enacted additional statute law to reinforce the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[11] on the rogue Southern States.  The Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified into Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and… 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, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.[12]
and
Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983: 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
"Yet even today 2011, as in 1871, "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, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871). One need only read the Supreme Courts Ruling in Connick v. Thompson released the end of last month.  In both the court's majority[13] opinion and the minority[14] dissent Mr. Thompson's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[15] were acknowledges to have been denied.  EVERYONE AGREES as to the facts, Mr. Thompson was denied his rights to Due Process of Law as called for by V and XIV Amendments.[16]  He had already acquired his First Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in the District Court via jury.  Connick was contesting the equity award in his action Connick v. Thompson.  Self ADMITTEDLY Connick had violated both Criminal and Civil Law via the denial of Mr. Thompson's Due Process Right.  Now his co-conspirators in the Courts would not prosecute him criminally. 
"We the People" do not have the protection of the law by those acting under color of law.  "We the People" or subject to the grant of absolute immunity by the Royalist Judiciary:
"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[17] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[18]
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned[19] for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.[20]"  A Judge and or Judiciary whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be a Judge of a free people. 
The Supreme Court self-admittedly knows better, I quote a REVERED and oft quoted Supreme Court Precedent:
They are "representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, they are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. They may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the state, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none."  Due Process of Law as described in Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
There is no Justice in America today.  "We the People" have no redress for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[21].  "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shall not ration justice."[22]
How are "We the People" suppose to defend ourselves against this repeated and random assault on the very essence of our Civil Liberty? "We the People" have no individually enforceable "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[23]  "We the People" do not have access to the V and XIV Amendments assurance of Due Process of Law.  "We the People" do not have access to the peaceful First Amendment Right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Isn't that what "We the People" over threw the King for an unwillingness of address Our repeated Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms?  Now granted these deprivations are random and cannot be easily predicted, but I assure they are meant to instill TERROR and our despotically driven.  They will not stop until "We the People" again take control of our Government of the People, for the People and by the People. 
"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 denied our rights) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to the Constitution, without regard to any 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."  (non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis)[24]
"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."[25]
When the Judiciary denies a Citizen their constitutionally assured Rights to Due Process of Law[26] and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances with a BLANKET GRANT of absolute immunity:
"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]
Why do we have a CONSTITUTION?  Why have we charged our judiciary with Justice under the constitution and laws?  Are they allowed to just make it up as they go along without regard to any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws????[29]

Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY?
The need for Justice is instinctual!!!

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/)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 4:06:10 PM - -  2011 04-13-11 Justice Under the Law for All - NOT   Am I the only one that sees the INSANITY REV 01.doc

[1] "Equal justice under law" is a BOLD FACE LIE engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.
[2] Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lead Counsel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
[3] Floyd and Barker (1607)
[4] EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1365
[5] See the Supreme Court Denial of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Jeep v. Jones 07-11115
[6] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[7] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[9] The King with The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, originally established the right of redress and TOOK RESPONSIBILTY for his Judges:
"If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us… to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon" (emphasis, non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity).  The assertion that Judges could no wrong because they were answerable only to him is not viable after 1215.
[10] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[11] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[12] I doubt anyone could disagree with Mr. Thompson's assertion of attempted MURDER: "If I'd spilled hot coffee on myself, I could have sued the person who served me the coffee," he said. "But I can't sue the prosecutors who nearly murdered me."
[13]  Supreme Court FIVE - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, & Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[14] Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, & Stephen Breyer
[15] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[16] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[17] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[18] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law
[19] See Jeep v Jones (2007) A Petition for a Writ Certiorari 07-11115, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947 (2010), Jeep v Obama (2011)
[20] Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
[21] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law
[22]  Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand – speech to the New York Legal Aid Society – Feb 16, 1951
[23] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[24] (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[25] The Federalist No. 78, "The Judiciary Department" Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
[26] V and XIV Amendments
[27] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[28] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law
[29] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law


--
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

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)