Saturday, May 28, 2011

Strict Scrutiny WITHOUT STRICT LIABILITY is just Sophistry The flaw in American Justice Saturday, May 28, 2011, 4:29:47 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

Strict Scrutiny

WITHOUT STRICT LIABILITY

is just Sophistry

The flaw in American Justice

Saturday, May 28, 2011, 4:29:47 PM

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

Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best "We have long enough 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]"

Strict Scrutiny arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause.

Strict Liability – Liability that does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm, but that is based on an absolute duty to make something safe. Strict Liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability. Strict Liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law.

Strict Scrutiny is supposed to assure us Rights. But after Strict Scrutiny as established by Supreme Court Precedent there is no Strict Liability for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[2] Why do we worry? Why did we establish "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[3] if no one was to be held liable for them.

Now if you are criminal, the Government is held to Strict Liability via The Exclusionary Rule. The Government is strictly forbidden from using any evidence acquired via the denial of a person's Constitutional Rights. But if you are innocent[4] The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant and Strict Scrutiny becomes irrelevant SOPHISTRY, no one has any Strict Liability for an innocent person's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[5] The Government can destroy your life and there is no 7^th Amendment[6] protection for RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone has "Absolute Immunity"[7] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[8]

"We the People" have written a constitution to secure rights, "The Bill of Rights." "We the People" have passed statute law to secure rights Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985. "We the People" have signed Treaties that require ourselves and others to secure rights, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [9]" PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a.), (b.) and (c.) (as adopted by the United Nations[10] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977).

But "We the People" have no SECURITY for RIGHTS. Our Government has no STRICT LIABLILTY for our Rights. Our government can randomly at-will deprive us of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11] and there is not a DAM thing we can do about it.

The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity" [12] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy"[13] "out of Court"[14] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [15]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[16]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[17]" 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"[18] 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 28, 2011, 4:29:47 PM, Separate and Unequal.doc

cc: My Blog - Saturday, May 28, 2011, 4:29:47 PM

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

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

[4] "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410

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

[6] Amendment 7 - 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.

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

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

[9] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" 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

[10] "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

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

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

[13] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

[14] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[15] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

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

[17] 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"

[18] 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

Bruce E. Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge

3rd Follow up PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G. JEEP, Defendant

I can no longer refer to Bruce E. Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge as Honorable

Timothy R. Cisar, of Lake Ozark, Missouri

Carl M. Ward of Washington, MO

~~Re:~~ ~~Honorable~~ Bruce E. Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge

Dear To whom it may concern,

1. No. SD30875, Filed: 5-20-11, Timothy R. Cisar, of Lake Ozark, Missouri

2. No. SD30625, Filed: 5-23-11, Carl M. Ward of Washington, MO

3. No. SD26269 Case CR203-1336M Filed pro se by David G. Jeep

Judge Colyer's ruling in both of your cases, SD30625 and SD30875, I would suggest comes out his exculpable personal knowledge that the Breath Alcohol Program has inherent flaws. I made him aware of this issue WITH my case CR203-1336M/SD26269/4:07-CV-0506-SOW/8^th District US Court of Appeals 08-1823. Where he criminally denied my civil rights to exculpable information via PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-trial objections and motions. It is all on my website and in the court record!!!!

The Police (Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913) State of Missouri, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach on the stand under oath presented false information that contradicted the verifiable exculpable information I was denied PRETRIAL, at TRIAL and POST TRIAL. They presented false information because they were institutionally ignorant. The Institution they represented, the institution under whose authority they were empowered to this DAY does not know what it is doing.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services ("DHSS") supports a Scientific method for Breath Alcohol Program. The Missouri Department of Transportation, Division of Highway Safety wants to enforce Criminal Penalties for the Breath Alcohol Program / DUI. There is no concerted effort to achieve the ultimate goal.

The HGN test is inconclusive except in well-lit where the subject has been allowed to acclimate to the conditions. The HGN test cannot be performed in less than well-lit conditions at roadside. There is not enough light and there are too many distractions. The HGN cannot be administered in the sally port because it is too bright and the subject's pupils never acclimate, as I was tested.

The SFST are used as an eyeball estimate of sobriety. An eyeball estimate of sobriety is NOT scientific unless consistently and accurately administered for a Criminal Evidentiary Determination. Especially so as in my case where the arresting officer swore on the stand under oath that a subject could be wearing up to a 4" heel before the offer to remove footwear was tendered. This contradicts the NHSTA standard of 2" heel as the requirement for the offer to remove shoes.

The SYSTEM is incapacitated by its too diverse bureaucratic make up. It needs to be put under ONE authority to regulate and STANDARDIZED all its components to create an evidentiary scientific procedure that can be relied on to establish guilt or innocents. I convinced Governor Blunt of this. Apparently my arguments did not touch ground with Attorney General Nixon, he has not as Governor enacted the necessary changes.

I made Governor Blunt, and then Attorney General Nixon VERY MUCH AWARE of this via my protestations (See letter on my website dated Missouri Attorney General's Office, Saturday, April 03, 2004 & Matt Blunt , Jay Nixon Report of a Crime, Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269 Wednesday, May 30, 2007) of a CRIMINAL conspiracy to cover the up the Prosecutions denial of exculpable evidence, the police's false testimony and the Trial Judge's (Honorable Bruce E. Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge) CRIMINAL refusal to honor my CIVIL RIGHTS in PRETRIAL, at TRIAL and POST TRIAL motions.

There is no STANDARDIZATION within the system for the HGN, the SFST or the Breathalyzer test. Nobody knows how the system is suppose to work, nobody knows for example if you are asked to blow for 20 seconds as I was, you will AWLWAYS get and invalid result!!!!! The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services ("DHSS") does not have the evidentiary interests of Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) in its processes, thus "the failure of [MoDOT] to adopt the necessary rules and regulations to carry out its duties" under the BAP

~~MODOT has no idea how to operate the machines they are convicting people with. And this ongoing incompetent technical ERROR is convicting people while violating the CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~

For more information I ask you to review my blog - Evidence, "The Evidence Tim Taylor's Incriminating Testimony," "The Evidence Alex Litte's Incriminating Testimony" and "The Evidence Petition for an Ex-parte Order of Protection" http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/Evidence

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

c/o The Bridge

1610 Olive Street

Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

(314) 514-5228

enclosure

a. http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2004/04/missouri-attorney-generals-office.html

b. http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2007/05/matt-blunt-jay-nixon-report-of-crime.html

cc: My Blog - Saturday, May 28, 2011, 4:36:33 PM

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

The Criminals are in Our Judicial Process Not in Our Prisons Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 9:36:39 AM BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. PLATA ET AL (09–1233)

-->

The Criminals are in Our Judicial Process

Not in Our Prisons

Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 9:36:39 AM

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. PLATA ET AL (09–1233)

"The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical[2] to the impartial administration of law and equity.[3]" "Immunity is given to crime,[4] and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.[5]" We have NO enforceable rights in Judicial Process today. If you are not wealthy enough to afford the high price of the shibboleth laden labyrinth of the limited liability Judicial Process you HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule Era, I refuse to believe our Judicial Process is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world. With the ubiquitous use of the plea bargain, innocent victims are offered little hope to clear their names against a stacked deck before the evidence is even revealed, "Either you plea out before trial or we go for the MAXIMUM!" "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.[6]" Our Royalist Judicial Process has been allowed to run amuck 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 constitutional rights. Rights that would have cleared their name, denied by immune CRIMINAL[7] attorneys persecuting innocent victims, not prosecuting, in our justice system, or wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[8] I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country. It scares me to think how many men have been emotionally, financially and physically torn from their own flesh and blood in the Jane Crow era. 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 5 of the current persons incarcerated in American prisons today 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[9] can do no wrong. The Royalist Judicial Process in America would prefer to let known criminals go free rather that accept criminal and civil responsibility for their criminal actions, under color of law.[10] 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!!!! The Exclusionary Rule is compensation to the criminal for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11]

As verified in Bivens, "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."[12]

"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[13] using their "sophistry" to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the establishment of Justice,[14] We the People[15] sought 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.[16]" They can deprive "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[17] under color of law but outside Due Process of law and there is nothing "We the People" can do about it short of Impeachment, Revolution or War.

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[18]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[19]" 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"[20] 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)

Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 9:43:34 AM, Sophistry Run Amuck.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] Amendment 1, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[3] DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871

[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 (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.

[5]DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871

[6] "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

[7] 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.

[8] 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."

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

[10] 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.

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

[12] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410

[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] Justice is the end of government, it is the civilized society

[15] "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

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

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

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

[19] 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"

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

Monday, May 23, 2011

Strict Scrutiny without Strict Liability is just SOPHISTRY

Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re:Strict Scrutiny without Strict Liability is just SOPHISTRY

With an innocent person the Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant.

Dear Mr. Roberts,

I remind you that our Country was founded on the desire to establish Justice for a Free People. Our Forefathers had long suffered under the IMMUNE despotic rule of the Government of King George III of England. They had repeatedly petitioned the Government of King George III, I quote “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress[1] in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”[2] They sought Justice between the government and the governed.

As you may or may not know, I have written to you before. I feel again compelled to bring you up to speed on Constitutional Law. Thomas Jefferson to my knowledge said it first and best, “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions 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.”[3] I realize you see your function, as a Supreme Court Justice, as somehow defending YOUR interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. But when you inflict it on “We the People” then I have an issue. We have not lived in a laissez-faire economy since the New Deal. We have not lived under the Immune rule of a King since July 4, 1776.

How do you justify the arbitrary power grab of self-serving Judge Made Law of Immunity[4] or even a contrived shibboleth laden labyrinth of limited liability[5] that deprives the 7^th Amendment’s protection? No where in the Constitution is that power provided for? We the People wrote the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. No-where in English Common Law is that power confirmed?

Yes John Marshal originally made the dubious power grab for Judge Made Law in Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)). But even there he referenced that the King was liable to a free people. “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. (Page 5 U. S. 163)”

Strict Scrutiny for Constitutional Rights is just SOPHISTRY unless and until there is STRICT LIABILITY attached to the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[6]

How do you justify Immunity with two specific constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[7] i.e., “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."

How do you look yourself in the mirror when you have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America that purports:

The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph –

“This Constitution (I) , and the Laws (II) of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made (III), 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”[8]

I. Constitution - Constitutionally secured First Amendment lawfully un-abridge-able right:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[9]

      II.      Law:
   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.
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[10]), 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.

III. All Treaties made – secures us:
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [11]” as adopted by the United Nations[12] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for Each State Party to the present Covenant i.e., 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;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

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”

Revised and extended Monday, May 23, 2011, 4:22:35 PM

David G. Jeep

enclosure

a. “Sophistry run Amuck”
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/05/sophistry.html

cc: My Blog - Monday, May 23, 2011, 4:22:35 PM

[1] The Forefathers had CLEARLY sought Justice for their GRIEVANCES!!! That is why they secured for themselves and their posterity a FIRST AMENDMENT constitutional lawfully un-abridge-able right: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” i.e., Justice between the We the People and the Government.

[2] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[3] The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810

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

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

[7] You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? There is not now and there was not then any titular value? No one is that petty. Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution? Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[8] Article. VI. Constitution for the United States of America.

[9] Clearly the Authors of the Constitution were referring to the issues that were a part of The Declaration of Independence, “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. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” They did not want to be ignored now all for the possibility that there posterity would be ignored either.

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

[11] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” 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

[12] “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