The flaw in American Justice
Monday, June 20, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity” for and by public ministers in the government of the United states of America is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy” “before out of Court” to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”
The grant of “Absolute Immunity” in American Justice System today is based on Lord Coke’s precedent in Floyd and Barker (1607) from the Star Chamber (Supreme Court Precedents Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 523 523 (1868) @ Page 74 U. S. 536, Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 347). The inherent fallacy of that logical basis is, immunity by Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607) third argument, last quarter of the first paragraph, is QUALIFIED by a “but if.” I quote:
“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.
Because Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607) qualified his grant of immunity it DOES NOT support a grant of “Absolute Immunity.” The grant of “Absolute Immunity” by the Supreme Court of the United States of America “for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335) is not logically consistent with its own asserted precedent.
To further elucidate, the aforementioned grant of “Absolute Immunity.” “Absolute Immunity” denies access “before out of Court” for issues of “false and malicious Persecutions” involving corruption in the judicial process because they “knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty.” The judicial process, in the person of its Judges “hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial,” to empower the “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.” Judges in these cases are acting under color of law i.e., Due process of law, but there actions are “extrajudicial” i.e., ministerial, not authorized by the Constitution for the United States, the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof or any Treaties made. Their denial of Due process of law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is a criminal act actionable under Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242. They are not are NOT acting under the law, but as public ministers under their personal authority as GOVERNMENT “public ministers.”
This thus creates a grievance against the Government redress able per the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”
Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and treaties made, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”
Now granted Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607) does not layout chapter and verse what to do if the “but if” occurs, but give him a break it was 1607 and the concept of statue law did not exist. Lord Coke was a willing subject of the King and owed the King his fealty he was not like you and me. The precedent is really a historical relic and ought to have been thrown off YEARS ago. In Lord Coke’s time, the common law court with the dearth of any written law, the judge made THE LAW. Yet it has to be asserted, consistent with his the only surviving written record, that because he referenced a “but if” he would in his court consider it as a “but if” exception to his assertion of:
“And Records are of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the Record itself; and in this point the Law is founded upon great reason; for if the Judiciall matters of Record should be drawn in question, by partial and sinister supposals and averments of Offenders, or any on their behalf, there never will be an end of Causes: But Controversies will be infinite; Et infinitum in jure reprobatur (And the infinite is to be disapproved in Law).”
I am NOT the first one to assert this logical FALLACY!!!!!!!!!!!
The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity”  for ministers and by ministers in the government of the United states of America is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy” “before out of Court” to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”