The flaw in American Justice
Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 4:04:21 PM
The ministerial grant of the conclusive presumption 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).”
The KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "black bag of tricks" assertion of Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was abolished for CAUSE, I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The causes were MANY, but one of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of "absolute immunity" was, and again I quote, "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted."
So our sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court constructed, and has since pulled the wool over We the Peoples eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted "absolute immunity" but who's power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately "clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined," FOR CAUSE, abusing said "absolute immunity." That would be like allowing a potential thief into your house because his father a known thief, a convicted thief asserted that he would not steal before he was caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE "ABSOLUTELY" TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to think any other way!!!!!!
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.” 
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour," 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) and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98!!!
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” 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, April 25, 2017, 4:04:21 PM, 2011 06-16-11 Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Rev 05
 The court took its name from the "Star Chamber" or "Starred Chamber" which was built in the reign of King Edward II (1284–1327) specifically for the meetings of the King's Council, though the origins of the name of the room itself are unclear. The COURT WAS abolished for CAUSE in 1641, I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The first reference to the chamber is in 1398, as the Sterred chambre; the more common form of the name appears in 1422 as le Sterne-chamere. Both forms recur throughout the fifteenth century, with Sterred Chambre last attested as appearing in the Supremacy of the Crown Act 1534.
The Star Chamber AS Lord Coke (1552–1634) knew it (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. Although it was initially a court of appeal, King Henry VII, Wolsey and Cranmer encouraged plaintiffs to bring their cases directly to the Star Chamber, bypassing the lower courts entirely. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. By Coke’s stadards The Star Chamber was not much of a court.
The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment—i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "take the Fifth"—is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.
 Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
 “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
 Ministerial i.e., unauthorized by the Constitution, Laws and Treaties made. As opposed to an authorized judicial act under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties made.
 “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
 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.”
 Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
 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"