My son is being raised by CRIMINALS
The FLAW in American Justice
Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:40:17 PM
I just read "Speak, father, speak to your little boy. Or I shall be lost forever" 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.” That is to say also the “malicious or corrupt” Prosecutor, Police and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process”:
“This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, 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" (Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ 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, 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...” (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 along with the criminals outside the law, 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."
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.  Mr. Lowe of
Kansas and Mr. Rainey of respectively said it in 1871. South Carolina
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 7th Amendment 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” 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 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
 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)
 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”
 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.
 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!!!!!!!!!
 Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
 wearing badges and the black robes of a judge
 wearing ski masks and carrying guns
 Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
 Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
 Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" United States of America
 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
, than according to the rules of the common law. United States