Sophistry run Amuck Our Judiciary, the Supreme Court Friday, May 13, 2011, 9:43:20 AM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

-->

Sophistry run Amuck

Our Judiciary, the Supreme Court

Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:11:03 AM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best “We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another.  In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.[1]”  Thomas Jefferson was referring to the Alien and Sedition Acts that voided freedom of the press and association (1798), during John Adams Presidency.  When Thomas Jefferson became president he pardon all those that had been charged or held under the Alien and Sedition Acts.

One need only look at the Civil Rights Act 1876, “That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement”  and compare it to Civil Rights Act 1964 we again said “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”  The only substantive difference is the Supreme Court with their Sophistry unrestrained chose to void the Civil Rights Act 1876 and then capriciously chose NOT to void the Civil Rights Act 1964.  We the People saw the problem when we passed the Civil Rights Act 1876.  But We the People could not enact a law that was needed and useful on our own, we had to endure 100 years of the Supreme Courts Sophistry FIRST!!!! If the Supreme Court’s sophistry had not gotten in the way we could have avoided 100 years of Jim Crow, racial unrest and persecution. 

An ill-advised reverential consideration of our Judges has to this day, to our own determent, empowered the self-serving judge made law of Judicial Immunity.[2]  Judicial immunity, by way of the ill-defined sophistry trick bag in stare diesis, can literally do anything unchecked.  We the People, have no enforceable rights in America “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” have “Absolute Immunity” for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[3]  Criminals[4] can randomly rob an innocent victim, criminals can randomly kidnap your children, criminals can randomly Murder the innocent victim.  And there is not a DAM thing anyone can do about it.  The Supreme Court requires[5] that the innocent victim, to receive substantive justice for the crimes perpetrated against the innocent victim must first prove that the criminal, under color of law, has done the same thing to multiple other innocent victims in a timely and consistent pattern of obvious stupidity before he or she can be held accountable for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[6] from the innocent victim.

In The Jane Crow Era[7], “It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house.”

A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating,[8] and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.

The innocent victim whose children have been kidnapped whose entire life’s possessions have been stolen has no recourse for redress of grievances.  It is the act of a Judge.  Black Robed Judges can do no wrong in the Royalist American version of the justice system.  Just ask the Kings, the Supreme Court[9] of the United States of America.  "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.[10]" "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.[11]"

I refuse to believe our Judicial Process is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed worlds.  “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.[12]” Our Royalist Judicial Process 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, denied by immune CRIMINAL[13] attorneys persecuting innocent victims, not prosecuting, in our justice system, wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[14]  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 likely had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To further their cause of a Royalist Justice system, the Supreme Court has created The Exclusionary Rule to cover up their crimes at the expense of We the People.  The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process[15] can do no wrong.  The royalist Judicial Process in America, with the Supreme Court’s Sophistry unrestrained, would prefer to let known criminals go free rather that accept criminal and civil responsibility for their criminal actions under color of law.[16]  They set up a royalist system of deterrents that allow criminals acting under color of law to act without personal regard to their actions, We the People are forced to cover up Judicial Process’s criminal actions by accepting the KNOWN criminal back into our midst.  It is INSANITY!!!!

“We the People” have to take back the unchecked power to fabricate self-serving Judge made law out of “sophistry.”  The Judiciary is and has been criminally[17] using their “sophistry” to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the ends of Justice, We the People[18] sought to establish for “ourselves and our Posterity.”

“We the People” do not have the substantive right to Justice between the Government and the People that instigated the Declaration of Independence’s repeated petitions for redress.  “We the People” do not have the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment. 

“We the People” are at the mercy of the judges and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.”  They can deprive “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[19] and there is nothing “We the People” can do about it short of Revolution and War. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[20]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[21]” denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[22] 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" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:11:03 AM, Separate and Unequal.doc

---

[1] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)

[2] Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial “Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)

[3] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[4] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, 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.

[5] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), high standards of proof; I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.

[6] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[7] 1973 The first  

[8] a failure of the individual’s psychological defense mechanism, it first manifests itself as apparent apathy. 

[9] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), high standards of proof; I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.

[10]Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871

[11] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871

[12] "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

[13] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."

[15] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)

[16] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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.

[17] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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.

[18] “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.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788

[19] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[20] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[21] 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”

[22] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

--
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

Separate and Unequal The flaw in American Justice Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 3:05:37 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Separate and Unequal

The flaw in American Justice

Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:08:39 AM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

The flaw in American Justice is in the unchecked Absolute power of the Supreme Court Sophistry.  Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best “We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another.  In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.[1]”  This has since Thomas Jefferson’s day, Alien and Sedition Acts, manifested itself in many ways, the most historically conspicuous, 100 years of Jim Crow, with Plessy v. Ferguson’s, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) assertion of “Separate but Equal” that truthfully meant, all sophistry aside, “Separate and Unequal.”

One need only look at the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876, “That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement”  and compare it to Civil Rights Act (1964) we again said “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”  If the Supreme Court’s sophistry had not gotten in the way we could have avoided 100 years of racial unrest and persecution. 

It started with the Dred Scott (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856)) case, there were arguably some political vagaries between the verbiage of the Declaration of Independence’s “all men are created equal” and the verbiage of the subsequent “three fifths of all other Persons,” Article. I., Section. 2, 3^rd Paragraph[2] of the Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 (ratified June 21, 1788) to wit:

“Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men -- high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.” Page 60 U. S. 410

To a very real extent that is true.  There were compromises made in the founding of our country.  Now did all the founders agree 100% with this compromise, NO.   But to get agreement they all accepted it.

After the Dred Scott case, after the Civil War, after we had fought a war and spilled blood to end slavery and all its ramifications of racially limited rights the same cannot be said.  There were no vagaries in the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments.[3]  Each of those Post Civil War amendments stipulated equal rights and “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”  Utilizing that constitutionally stipulated power Congress debated, enacted and the President signed into law the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876:

Where as it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

The Supreme Court’s “sophistry” in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) nullified the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876:

“On the whole, we are of opinion that no countenance of authority for the passage of the law in question can be found in either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and no other ground of authority for its passage being suggested, it must necessarily be declared void, at least so far as its operation in the several States is concerned.” Page 109 U. S. 25

And then 13 years later with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) the Supreme Court went further with it’s “sophistry” in support of the Louisiana 1890 Separate Car Act that required the East Louisiana Railroad to segregate trains:

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.” Page 163 U. S. 551

The Supreme Court knew better in regard to the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) because of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent told them so:

“The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.

"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."

Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) @ Page 109 U. S. 26

Again Justice Harlan made it quite clear dissenting in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896):

 “[I]n 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.”  Page 163 U. S. 559

Now “We the People did not wizen up until we passed the Civil Rights Act (1964) 100 years of Jim Crow segregation after the Civil War later.  With the Civil Rights Act (1964) we again said: 

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

An ill-advised reverential consideration of our Judges has to this day, to our determent, empowered the self-serving judge made law of Judicial Immunity.[4]  We the People, have no enforceable rights in America “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” have “Absolute Immunity” for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[5] 

“We the People” have to take back the unchecked power to fabricate self-serving Judge made law out of “sophistry.”  The Judiciary is and has been criminally[6] using their “sophistry” to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the ends of Justice, We the People[7] sought to establish for “ourselves and our Posterity.”

“We the People” do not have the substantive right to Justice between the Government and the People that instigated the Declaration of Independence’s repeated petitions for redress.  “We the People” do not have the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment. 

“We the People” are at the mercy of the judges and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.”  They can deprive “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[8] and there is nothing “We the People” can do about it short of Revolution and War. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[9]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[10]” denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[11] 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" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:08:39 AM, Separate and Unequal.doc

---

[1] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)

[2] Article. I.  Section. 9. “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

[3] AMENDMENT XIII, Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865, AMENDMENT XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868, AMENDMENT XV, Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

[4] Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial “Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)

[5] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[6] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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.

[7] “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.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788

[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[9] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[10] 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”

[11] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

--
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

Why don’t we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals? Monday, May 09, 2011, 4:25:00 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Why don't we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals?

Monday, May 09, 2011, 4:25:00 PM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Why is there such a big issue in holding our Civil Servants liable for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[1]  What is their function if not to enforce the law within the confines of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"

Why do we have Judge, Prosecutors, Police, point in fact "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[2] if they can criminally use the Color of Law to randomly, maliciously, corruptly or incompetently Steal, Kidnap, and Murder by depriving the innocent victim's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."  Why don't we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals?

This Constitution -  is suppose to secures us:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to … establish Justice… to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 4., Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article 6., 2^nd Paragraph

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 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.

Amendment 1

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

Amendment 14, Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside. 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.

The Laws - Statute law secures us:

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY  Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: 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

and

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.

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 (they stole everything and then kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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.

All Treaties made – secures us:

"The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[3]" as adopted by the United Nations[4] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for third world countries and the United States of America:

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;

To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted

We will HAVE NONE of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

We will HAVE Supreme Court Precedent, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), that requires the innocent victim, while possibly being impoverished, destitute, homeless and alone on the street, like myself, or convicted in jail on death row like Mr. Thompson, to prove that the criminals that stole from the innocent victim, the criminals that kidnapped[5] the innocent victim's children, the criminals that attempted to MURDER[6] the innocent victim did the EXACT same thing to several other innocent victims in a timely and consistent pattern.  If the innocent victim does not prove all that, the innocent victim has NO HOPE for substantive justice from the government of the people, by the people and for the people for the criminal government actions.  Even if the innocent victim repeatedly "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Judicial precedent deprives the innocent victim of the right to substantive justice between the government and the people[7]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals?

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[8] 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/)

Monday, May 09, 2011, 4:25:00 PM 2011 05-09-11 Constitutional ISSUES  REV 02.doc

---

[1] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[2] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[3] "The Covenant is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM

[4] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM

[5] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- 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 (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill 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.

[7] Anybody that actually even wants to NOT believe this ought to read the Declaration of Independence.  And if you think all our forefathers wanted when they "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" was to be free to endlessly petition without any force of law to establish the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  You are INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

--
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