Saturday, July 16, 2011

My son is being raised by CRIMINALS The FLAW in American Justice Saturday, July 16, 2011, 3:04:24 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

My son is being raised by CRIMINALS
The FLAW in American Justice
Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:40:17 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

     I just read "Speak, father, speak to your little boy. Or I shall be lost forever"[1] in the New York Times this morning.  I can’t get it out of my mind.  My son is 16 and not really little anymore but still I am compelled to speak.  My take was extraordinarily personal and out of context from the author’s intent, but still I can not let it go!!!!!!!!!! 
     The criminals that stole him from me are raising my son.  They stole EVERYTHING, my liberty, my home; everything I once owned or cared for.  Those very same criminals and virtually everyone else are telling him LIES, that I am the CRIMINAL that I am fixated, if not insane, for refusing to capitulate to the status quo of Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police indiscriminate corruption of the Justice system.
     It rings in my ears even though I have never even heard it out loud, only read it moments ago, Speak, father, speak to your little boy. Or I shall be lost forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     The Supreme Court admits that their grant of absolute immunity, before out of court, protects the “malicious or corrupt judge.”[2] That is to say also the “malicious or corrupt” Prosecutor,[3] Police and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process”[4]:
     “This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,[5] but for the benefit of (“We the People” being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences"[6] (Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[7] @ Page 80 U. S. 349 non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).
They took my son, they took my home, they took my liberty and I am suppose to just capitulate because they have granted themselves this corrupt, malicious and incompetent Absolute Immunity????????????? 
     “The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried (again this is a lie, the prosecutors and Judges get unfounded claims and dismiss cases all the time for lack of evidence.  That is part of the job as professionals.), and that to submit all officials,(only the ones for whom “probable cause” can be substantiated) the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome would dampen the ardor (I unabashedly want to dampen the ardor of those that would persecute the innocent, maliciously, corruptly or INCOMPETENTLY) of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties. Again and again the public interest calls for action which may turn out to be founded on a mistake,[8] in the face of which an official may later find himself hard put to it to satisfy a jury of his good faith. There must indeed be means of punishing public officers who have been truant to their duties, but that is quite another matter from exposing such as have been honestly mistaken to suit by anyone who has suffered from their errors. As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance, it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation...”[9] (Non-italic parenthetical editing and emphasis added)
This entire argument is false on its FACE, it asserts as a premise “There must indeed be means of punishing public officers” the complete opposite of what it concludes “it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs” i.e., immunity for “public officers.”
     Now there is a parallel case to be made that prosecuting “public officers” is inexpedient, that the conviction rate might be smaller than the average prosecution.  And I agree that may in fact be true.  But just because prosecution of this law over the prosecution of that law result in a different rate of success, does not mean that one law is more or less valid than the other.
For my money, as a onetime taxpaying citizen, I assert that CIVIL RIGHTS are the most important law of all.  If I have to live in fear of criminals under color of law[10] along with the criminals outside the law,[11] I have no place that I am safe.  To establish ourselves as a viable civilization we have to establish the Rule of Law.  The Rule of Law FIRST and foremost has to bind ALL THOSE acting under its authority.  Alexander Hamilton, in 1788, in regard to our constitution said it first and better, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void."[12]
     This was ALL clearly confirmed in the Supreme Court opinion by John Marshall (1755-1835), 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1801-1835) in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. 137 (1803):
     “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” (Page 5 U. S. 163). 
     “Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy” (Page 5 U. S. 166).

The Protection of the Laws is ESSENTIAL

to any civilization!!!!!!!!!!


     “Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.” “The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.”   I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [13]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[14]. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[15]
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,[16]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[17] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011!!!
     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)
Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:40:17 PM, 2011 07-16-16 My son is being raised by CRIMINALS REV 02.doc


[1] TOMMY DONAHUE, reciting a childhood poem he wrote about his father, an innocent victim of Boston's mob wars.  NYTimes.com's Today's Headlines newsletter Saturday, July 16, 2011 3:14 AM
[2] Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ 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”), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[3] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”)
[4] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[5] It should be noted that it protects the “malicious or corrupt judge” i.e., “Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process”
[6] Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial “Absolute Immunity)
[7] It should be noted that this precedent, Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871), and the only and other precedent preceding it Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) were both in deliberate response to § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) and the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) respectively.
[8] Any professional should be able to handle emergency exigent circumstances; in such cases “Good Faith” could be the presumption.  But because immunity is, before out of court, Good faith, bad faith is never even an ISSUE!!!!!!!!!
[9] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[10] wearing badges and the black robes of a judge
[11] wearing ski masks and carrying guns
[12] Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
[14] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[16] 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"
[17] Amendment VII 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.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, July 15, 2011

The Flaw in American JOURNALISM Things are NOT as They Were Friday, July 15, 2011, 9:39:05 AM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)


The Flaw in American JOURNALISM
Things are NOT as They Were
Friday, July 15, 2011, 9:39:05 AM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

It use to be that “To bereave a man of life, says he or by violence to confiscate his estate, without Due Process of Law would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation!!!!!!!!!!!![1]”  Things are NOT as they were.  In the 18th Century during revolutionary times American JOURNALISM was courageous.  They fought and died for the freedom of the press.  Things are NOT as they were; revolutionary American JOURNALISM would never have stood still for “so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation” as they do today.
Men are bereaved of their children, their life, their liberty, and their property, without DUE PROCESS of LAW, all the time in the courthouses of America.  I mean just look at our prisons.  “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.[2]” And it is considered tooo inexpedient[3] to give an innocent person unconstitutionally, illegally and wrongfully convicted of an infamous crime any hope of petitioning “the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Expediency is not an acceptable excuse when it comes to right and wrong, if you give in to expediency in such an issue you will expediently condemn yourself.  Who ever said the right way had to be the easy way, the expedient way.  Why would we even take the time to write down as absolute law if it was not intent to the have “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”  The incorporated acts of the government, its Judiciary and “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[4] are considered “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.”[5]  Everyone has immunity from civil and criminal liability -- everyone but the innocent victim of the corruption, malice and incompetence.  I have to question that? 
Did not We the People of the United States fight a revolutionary war to throw off the incorporated acts of the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants that asserted themselves to be “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.”[6]
Did not We the People of the United States say in our preamble:
“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.”[7]
Did not We the People of the United States incorporate our selves into a government and bind all authorized under color of law to abide by:
“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.”[8]
Did not We the People’s of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment guarantee:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet, NO one is alarmed, our journalist do not even care, few people are thus even aware men are bereaved of their children, their life, their liberty, and their property, without Due Process of Law, because of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary’s unlawful conspiracy, immunity, is "before out of Court."[9]  Immunity is "before out of Court"[10] an "unlawful Conspiracy"[11] "extrajudicial"[12] self-serving ministerial rule, there is NO constitutional[13] or statutory[14] law authorizing it, at the highest levels of the United States of America's Executive (prosecutorial) and Justice (judicial) Departments, to deprive We the People the protection of constitutionally secured Due Process of Law.  Immunity "before out of Court," [15] as handed out in the American Justice System, like Halloween candy, [16] in purpose and in effect unlawfully covers-up “false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he/she knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty.”[17]  That is based on the common law precedent of Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) that supposedly authorized immunity at its American inception (Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)).
A thief steals your belongings in the dark of night with a gun.  A Judge steals your life, liberty, family and property in the broad light of day with a gavel via the denial of DUE PROCESS of LAW.   You have no redress, The Supreme Court has made a rule and declared “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”[18]  We reward quilty persons for the deprivation of their rights with The Exclusionary Rule.  But The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in an innocent person’s case.  It is Damages or nothing.[19]
You only have rights if you have money e.g., "Ladies and gentlemen," he told jurors, "We have taken about a week out of your life. We expended a lot of your taxpayers money to reach this point. Unfortunately there are rules we play by and those rules are designed to insure that both parties receive a fair trial."[20]  That was the recent ruling in the Roger Clemens perjury trial.  They would not even prosecute a clear cases of perjury on my behalf, much less play by the rules designed to insure that both parties receive a fair trial"[21] and grant a miss trial based on the jury being mislead by blatantly FALSE testimony.  In my case, I proved post conviction that the testimony was false, that the falsification of the testimony was only possible because the prosecutors had denied me exculpable[22] evidence in spite of my pretrial motion for said evidence. 
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void."[23]
This should be, per The great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), “Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty; for if once it were left in the power of any the highest magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, (as in France it is daily practised by the crown,) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. Some have thought that unjust attacks, even upon life or property, at the arbitrary will of the magistrate, are less dangerous to the commonwealth than such as are made upon the personal liberty of the subject. To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” [24]
Not in America today, in the Jane Crow[25] era you can be charged with a series of infamous crimes, the more the better, and held; there need be no probable cause, no consideration for police credibility.  The Police can falsify evidence and perjure themselves without consequence. Whatever the ABSOLUTELY immune incorporated government, the prosecutors, the police, and Judicial Officers say GOES.  All those integral in the judicial process, have absolute immunity, they can then pile on and take away your life, your liberty, your family, and your home without any regard for veracity or Due Process of Law.  They can deny you the any opportunity to be heard "before out of Court," [26] with their criminal unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy” [27] assertion of judicial rules/law[28] and absolute immunity.  The police, the prosecutors, the judges and other conspirators can knowingly deny exculpable evidence, present false evidence.  They can bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial. Yet none knows are cares because it is before our of court and it is the word infamous criminal against the Judges, the Police and all those that were integral in the judicial process.  The press refuses to entertain even the possibility of “so gross and notorious an act of despotism.”  There is not chance to convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole.” It is as if one were held in confinement, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, And because of the Press’s apathy it is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”!!!!!!!
“Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.” “The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.”   I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1967. [29]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[30]. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[31]
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,[32]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[33] 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”[34] 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)
Friday, July 15, 2011, 9:39:05 AM, 2011 07-13-11 Things are NOT as they were REV 02.doc

[1] Blackstone's Commentaries (1765-1769), Vol. 1, p. 136 and The Federalist No. 84 (1788) by Alexander Hamilton
[2] “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
[3] Judge Learned Hand’s apathetic corrupt assertion says it best,   “As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.” Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950). Expediency is not an acceptable excuse when it comes to right and wrong, if you give in to expediency in such an issue you will expediently condemn yourself.  Why would we even take the time to write down as absolute law if it was not intent to the have “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”
[5] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) This is the conclusion of the precedent with EXCEPTIONS noted.  Third logical argument end of the paragraph, the noted EXCEPTION, "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." (emphasis and underlining added)
[6] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) This is the conclusion of the precedent with EXCEPTIONS noted.
[7] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America
[8] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph
[9] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph, the noted EXCEPTION, "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." (emphasis and underlining added)  
[10] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[11] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[12] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[13] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility 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." 
You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the NOBLE Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than NOBLE Status of IMMUNITY - being above the law?  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and the Colonial era, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[14] Point in fact the statues Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 & Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 make “Whoever” criminally and “Every person” civilly liable for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” There was NEVER a sub silentio intent to exempt “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”  Why would even have attempted to write it down as the Supreme Law of the Law if EVER we were intent upon awarding those acting under color of law IMMUNITY from that very same law.  Thurgood Marshall in Briscoe v LaHue said it “approaches the incredible.”  I say IT IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
[15] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[16] The SUPREME COURT has abused, their non-existent, authority to make law by the grant of absolute immunity for the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights i.e., first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) followed by Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967 (JUDGES), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (PROSECUTORS), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) (Judge criminally ordered forced non-consensual uninformed sterilization of a healthy, mind and body, minor child) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
[17] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
[19] “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. 410 (1971)
[20] U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in the Roger Clemens federal perjury trial abruptly declared a mistrial on the second day of testimony after the government inadvertently allowed the jury to hear statements from a U.S. congressman questioning the credibility of one of the key witnesses against the former All-Star baseball pitcher.  Online, Los Angeles Times, By Richard A. Serrano, July 14, 2011, 9:01 a.m.
[22] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.8 86-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[23] Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
[24] The great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), argued in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1753) that one of the key "absolute rights of individuals" was the right to the preservation of one's personal liberty. Following from this principle he further argued that it was "a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government" to "secretly hurry" a man to jail where he might suffer unknown or forgotten by the people: © 2011 Online Library of Liberty (emphasis and underling added)
[25] ."The Jane Crow era” “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, “Hitting below the belt” 10/25/99, 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.
[26] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[27] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[28] Per the RULE of precedent Kahn v. Kahn (21 F.3d 859) and Federal RULE of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) excludes before out of Court any attempt to get the protection of the 14th Amendment
[30] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[32] 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"
[33] Amendment VII 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.
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)