Saturday, April 30, 2011

“The Exclusionary Rule” Is a cover up Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:28:50 AM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

09-571 Connick v. Thompson (03/29/2011)
“The Exclusionary Rule”
Is a cover up
Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process can do no wrong.  We the People pay the Police, the Prosecutors, the Judiciary, and the Justice Department to enforce “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[1] on our behalf.  
Yet they see themselves as criminally and civilly immune for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” at our expense.  To make this COVER-UP more criminal if you will, they then let KNOWN criminals back on the street to COVER UP THE Justice Department’s CRIMINAL INCOMPETENCE, to wit: The Exclusionary Rule!!!!
The Supreme Court FIVE[2] in their ruling CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) excused the prosecutors attempted MURDER of Mr. Thompson without any criminal or civil repercussions.  The Supreme Court FIVE is, at present, getting away with it because of the self-serving Judge-made-law of immunity.  In CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) they do not call it immunity, they call it “difficult problems of proof”.  Both Connick and The Supreme Court FIVE admit to the evidence of the “deprivation of rights”[3] in Connick v Thompson.  The “difficult problems of proof” as The Supreme Court FIVE describe it is, Thompson should have proven that Connick not only denied Thompson’s rights but that Connick denied several other victims their rights in similar and timely fashion to the extent that Connick would have been forced to quite literally TRIP OVER the GLARING problem of the UN-enforcement of fair due process of law, to wit: the defense is entitled to evidence that would proves their innocents.  The judge-made-law standard in question Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963) had been openly on the books for 22 YEARS at the original conviction of Thompson in 1985!!!  Today it has been on the books for 48 years and still the Justice Department is NOT strictly liable for its common sense import, an accused is to be provided any evidence that would prove their innocence.
Not only does the Supreme Court FIVE refuse to limit their power per the “Constitution,[4] the Laws[5] of the United States, and Treaties[6] made” (Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788)), the Supreme Court FIVE refuses to enforce their own JUDGE-MADE-LAW 23-48 years after making it!!!!!!!!
Mr. Thompson, per the Supreme Court FIVE, from his jail cell on DEATH ROW, should have found other victims of Connick’s criminal conspiracy for the deprivation of rights[7] before Mr. Thompson tried to get a First Amendment un-abridge-able right to redress of grievance, either criminal or civil, from Connick.  That is, in immediate effect, allows any “one time” denial of rights ABSOLTE IMMUNITY from criminal and civil prosecution.  But even in Thompson’s case, where several violations were found, the “stringent standard of fault” and “difficult problems of proof”[8] required by the Supreme Court FIVE’s Judge-made-law in Connick is not just stringent and difficult, they are IMPOSSIBLE to overcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMPEACH the Supreme Court FIVE!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  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”[9] 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 “The most humble petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:28:50 AM 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc


[4] First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[5] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[6] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
[7] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[8] CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) Cite as: 563 U. S. ____ (2011) Page 18 of the opinion of the court.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 29, 2011

The Supreme Court’s DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary War Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:01:42 PM


The Supreme Court’s DENIAL of
The Declaration of Independence and
The Revolutionary War
Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:49:44 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

The Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were both based on the assertion “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”[1]  That was the ORIGINAL view[2] in colonial America; I would hold still the current view in America today.  If King George III’s government had responded to the “repeated Petitions” with a redress of grievances, Justice and Due Process of Law, instead of “by repeated injury” the world would definitely be a different, possibly a much better, place today. 
The DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence’s reference “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury”[3] and then the Revolutionary War formed the ORIGINAL view[4] that prompted the founding fathers to write into the new Constitution for the United States of America the First Amendment's security:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The right to substantive justice between government and governed was intended to hopefully avert future declarations and revolutions.
Given the additional Constitutional security, as a primary goal of our new Union, to establish Justice[5] by means of Due Process of Law[6] and the Jury System,[7] “We the People” thought to avoid any future arbitrary unassailable assertion of Immunity that could result in “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”[8]
But that is not the way it has played out.  Two hundred and twenty three years later The Supreme Court has fabricated, out of thin air and hubris, their unlawful abridgment, Judge made law, of immunity and or limited liability into a Jury Award for the First Amendment’s secured legally UN-abridge able right for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court usurped the power to make law by merely asserting it in their unconstitutional, over-reaching, and self-serving interpretations.  These laws were fabricated out of a self-serving desire of the Judiciary to set themselves up as the Divine Arbitrator in a system of government that had taken offence to repeated injury with the Declaration of Independence and invested LIVES in the Revolutionary War to over throw another self-serving would-be divine arbitrator, the King. 
We the people had sought to set up the Legislator in conjunction with the President as the ONLY means of making laws and Due Process of Law,[9] the Jury System[10] as the arbitrator to establish Justice.[11]
Nowhere is Judge made law envisioned or provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America.  Article I Sections 1-10 of the Constitution clearly defines how Law is to be made by the Congress of the United States and a President of the United States of America.  No mention of the Judiciary in the establishment or creation of law.  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made” per Article III, Section 2.  Clearly that limits Judicial Power “under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.” 
With the Constitution We the People defined the judicial power’s limitation.  First and foremost We the People stated our prime intent to - establish Justice.  Justice is opposed to any grant of immunity by definition, the immune person cannot be brought to Justice to wit: the King or an immune government authority.  We go further with V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to define the means of Justice to wit: Due Process of Law and Jury system.[12]  As the primary right to substantive justice between government and governed the First Amendment's security:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Government is to be held accountable for a redress of grievances by Constitutional security i.e., force of due process law and the Jury system.  We the People thus sought to pre-empt any future possibility for “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury”[13] as addressed and affirmed by our Declaration of Independence and the investment of lives in the Revolutionary War.
With LAW, We the People after the Civil War sought to reinforce “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[14] and to reaffirm the right to substantive justice between government and governed for the newly emancipated slaves with LAW, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into our code of law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985.  The Civil Rights Act of 1871, via statute LAW, held “Every person” civilly liable and “Whoever” criminally UN-abridge ably liable for the “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law.
With Treaties made, we most recently reassured the world with “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”
We the People have with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Revolutionary War 1776-1782, the Constitution 1788, the Law “Civil Rights Act of 1871” and Treaties made “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” 1977 given CLEAR direction to the Supreme Court per Article III, Section 2 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.”. We the People demand “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The current Supreme Court FIVE[15] has, in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) been derelict in their duty with “fraud on court,[16]” in an unlawful and unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment's security:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

with their inserted “difficult problems of proof,” and limited liability as regards the already established Due Process of Law[17] Jury Award[18] of Mr. Thompson.  This is a refusal to take note of We the People “under this Constitution,[19] the Laws[20] of the United States, and Treaties[21] made” Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788).
The current Supreme Court FIVE[22] has clearly committed fraud upon the court by the Supreme Court’s DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made as BINDING LAW and originalist and current PRECEDENT with their ruling CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11).
This is clearly NOT “good Behaviour”[23] and an impeachable OFFENCE to We the People and the Constitution for the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Thompson and I both “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”[24]  “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000.[25]”  Our Justice system has been allowed to run unchecked for TOOO long.  We have no IDEA.  It scares me to think how many INNOCENT people may currently be incarcerated that have been denied their rights.  Rights that would have cleared their name by denied by immune CRIMINALS persecuting, not prosecuting, in our justice system, wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  I REFUSE to believe that our criminal Justice system is 5 times better!!!!  I am FORCED by the PRECEDENT of personal experience to think that 4 out of, the inflated American population, 5 of the current persons incarcerated in our prisons as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have quite possibly had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  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”[26] 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 “The most humble petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:49:44 PM 2011 05-02-11 Lacy Clay Meeting REV 00.doc

[1] “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[2] This should appease all the Originalist’s in the audience. I would assert that this is the Current view also. 
[3] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[4] This should appease all the Originalist’s in the audience.
[5] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
[6] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[7] VII (7th) Amendment to the Constitution
[8] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[9] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[10] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. “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.”
[11] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
[12] V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[13] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[16] In a Judicial proceeding a party’s misconduct so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding
[17] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[18] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. “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.”
[19] First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[21] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
[23] 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”
[24] “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[25] “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 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: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 28, 2011

“Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms” - The TIMELY, certain and indisputable Judicially BINDING PRECEDENT, Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay, President Barack Hussein Obama, Neal K. Katyal, Acting Solicitor General



Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay by HAND

President Barack Hussein Obama by US Mail
Neal K. Katyal, Acting Solicitor Gen. by US Mail
Senator Claire McCaskill by US Mail
Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General by US Mail


Re: "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms"
       The TIMELY, certain and indisputable Judicially BINDING PRECEDENT
       Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[1]

Dear People,
I am sure this seems like nothing to you.  It is about A Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Right!!!  "We the People" in writing the First Amendment's guaranteed ourselves:
 "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
sought to establish Justice[2] via Due Process of Law[3] for those of US that would, unavoidably, acknowledging human imperfection, eventually be aggrieved.  The idea that anyone would ever assert "Sovereign Immunity" or abridge a constitutional amendment per Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571's version of "limited liability" for a constitutionally DECLARED and ESTABLISHED right in a government of the people, by the people, for the people was and is insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 28, 2011, 4:35:51 PM
enclosure:"Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms"
"Petitioned for Redress
  in the most humble terms"[4]
Thursday, April 28, 2011, 4:35:51 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

King George III's government's unjustified[5] assertion of immunity by his rejection of We the People's "repeated Petitions" for a redress of grievances "in the most humble terms," the Declaration of Independence,[6] is the raisons d'etre, and thus the TIMELY[7], certain and indisputable judicially BINDING PRECEDENT, for We the People's CONSTITUTIONAL authority to establish Justice[8] and Due Process of Law[9] with the First Amendment's LEGALLY UN-ABRIDGABLE redress of grievances.  The DENIAL of the repeated petitions for redress of grievances by the colonist in 1776 formed the precedent for the First Amendment guarantee.  :

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For the Supreme Court FIVE[10] to arbitrarily limit and or deny the lawfully established UN-ABRIDGABLE Due Process First Amendment right of redress for the attempted MURDER[11] of Mr. Thompson, via the agreed denial of his constitutional rights, is criminal and thus impeachable BAD BEHAVIOR.[12] For the Supreme Court FIVE[13] to assert prior precedent only establishes the ongoing CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY[14] AGAINST RIGHTS!!!! John Thompson's First Amendment right was UNJUSTIFIABLY denied by the Supreme Court FIVE[15] in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571.[16]  The Supreme Court FIVE[17] and Connick both[18] acknowledged the prior deprivation of Thompson's rights in the facts of the case.  The on going CRIMINAL[19] conspiracy against rights then denied him the already established JUSTIFIED, Due Process, First Amendment Jury Award "for a redress of grievances."
My rights have been denied SIMILARLY for 7 ½ years (Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115).  They KIDNAPPED my son, took my home, sullied my father's good name.  They took EVERYTHING I ever cared about!!!!!!!!!!!!  They did it ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY by denying me "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[20].  The facts of my case have never been disputed nor can they be.  The evidence is unimpeachable.  Additionally I have been denied my JUSTIFIABLE, Due Process, legally UNABRIDGABLE, First Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
How do victims re-establish themselves after the criminal denial of a conspiracy against right under color of law without the First Amendment's assurance:

 "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Court has often acknowledged[21] that the alternative to judicial process is force.  Therefore, in so abridging the right of the people to obtain just redress through the compulsory process of law, the judiciary is setting the people up for violence against government by refusing to hear their cries for justice. That is our government wagging a war of oppression against its own people.

Do "We the People" have to fight another
REVOLUTIONARY WAR?
I went to JAIL for asking this before,

"Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn't Blow Up a

"Murrah Federal Building?"[22]"

There are members of the congress that want to assert they are attempting to address this issue, NOT!!  Senator Jim Webb (D VA) sponsored the bill, "The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009" (three years later, the "National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2011,"[23] still has not), to take a HARD look at our Justice system in regard to this and other issues.  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000.[24]"  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  I REFUSE to believe that our criminal Justice system is 5 times better!!!!  You could REASONABLY make a case based on the fact that the over whelming majority (22 world to 1 USA) of the rest of the world, 6,894,027,231 people, are right and we, 312,706,226 people, are wrong; that 4 out of 5 of the people we currently have in jail have a claim that their rights have been denied!!!
BUT, this issue is UN-ABRIDGABLE by congress:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 "The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between government and governed."  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"[25] 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 Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Thursday, April 28, 2011, 4:35:51 PM 2011 04-29-11 The TIMELY , certain and indisputable Judicially BINDING PRECEDENT REV 03.doc

[2] "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
[3] V and XIV Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
[4] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[5] I would assert the Magna Carta (§ 61) 1215, Magna Carta 1297, The Petition of right 1628, all denied Sovereign Immunity and assured the unregulated justifiable "lawful judgement of his peers" as regards the petition at a minimum!!!!!
[6] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[7] A Revolutionary War and 13 years later, 1789 Ratification of the Constitution and 1776 Declaration of Independence
[8] "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
[9] V and XIV Amendments to the Constitution.
[11] It should be noted that ATTEMPTED MURDER involved 18 years in prison, 14 years on DEATH ROW.
[12] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[14] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[16] Let's not get pedantic here and assert that he used the WRONG shibboleth by asking only for his Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 right.  Justice, to fulfill its purpose has to be self-executing i.e., "We the People" enforce the law without a required shibboleth.  "We the People" arrest bank robbers without a shibboleth from the victim.
[19] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
[21] United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) Page 106 U. S. 219 "In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."
[23] Additionally sponsored by Mr. BROWN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. McCASKILL, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. UDALL, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mrs. MURRAY
[24] "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
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)