Saturday, July 23, 2011

Mr. Obama "Where does a person go for the Protection of the Laws?" The FLAW in American Justice Friday, July 22, 2011, 4:58:15 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)


Where does a person go for the
Protection of the Laws?

The FLAW in American Justice
Saturday, July 23, 2011, 3:07:28 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

"Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law."  United States v. Classic, supra, 313 U. S. 325-326, Screws v. United States, supra, 325 U. S. 108-113, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 184 (1961)
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) @ Page 365 U. S. 177:
“Mr. Burchard of Illinois pointed out that the statutes of a State may show no discrimination:
"If the State Legislature pass a law discriminating against any portion of its citizens, or if it fails to enact provisions equally applicable to every class for the protection of their person and property, it will be admitted that the State does not afford the equal protection. But if the statutes show no discrimination, yet, in its judicial tribunals, one class is unable to secure that enforcement of their rights and punishment for their infraction which is accorded to another, or, if secret combinations of men are allowed by the Executive to band together to deprive one class of citizens of their legal rights without a proper effort to discover, detect, and punish the violations of law and order, the State has not afforded to all its citizens the equal protection of the laws."”  Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. App. 315
This all started eight years ago with the deprivation of rights was instigated by two self confessed, on the witness stand under oath, INCOMPETENT police officers.  I had been denied the exculpable material[1] I had requested pretrial that would have proven their INCOMPETENTANCE.  They were clothed with the authority of state law and I had been denied the exculpable proof of their incompetence.
In court the case started when Judge Bennett held me overnight without probable cause on an infamous charge without allowing me bare minimum Due Process to be heard on the LACK of probable cause.[2]  He eventually recused himself for his bad act, but the irreparable DAMAGE had already been piled on;   Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones unconstitutionally use of Judge Bennett’s bad act against me in an additional unrelated infamous charge. 
Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones both ordered me held without probable cause on an infamous charge, an ex parte order of protection, based on Judge Bennett’s unrelated bad act and without access to Due Process of Law.
At the Due Process hearing the specifics of the ex parte order of protection were changed by Commissioner Jones.  I quote from the transcript “The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.  The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true.”  Despite two post trial motions I was never given a set of those findings, amended pleadings, and I was never afforded my Due Process right to be heard on the amended pleadings. 
Judge Colyer and the Prosecuting attorneys, Mr. Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mr. W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney at the same time in a different courtroom on a different case withheld exculpable material[3] Pre-trial and AT-trial.  The Police Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920 and Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913 presented false if not perjeriuos fraudulent testimony. 
Judge Colyer refused me a mistrial with the full knowledge of the fraudulent testimony and the denial of exculpable material.
In the eight years since this deprivation of rights was instigated by two self confessed INCOMPETENT police officers I have contacted then Attorney General State of Missouri Jay Nixon,  Sheriff of Camden County, Missouri State Highway Patrol, then Governor State of Missouri Mathew Blunt, Catherine Hannaway (AUSA), Carol E. Jackson (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al), US District Court Judge, Scott O. Wright (4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al), Senior US District Judge, 8th District US Court of Appeals (07-2614 & 08-1823), Mike Christian (FBI),  Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) Raymond Meyer (AUSA), Attorney General Eric Holder, President of the United States Goerge W. Bush, President of the United States Barack Obama, The Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, The Supreme Court.  And US Supreme Court (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) with Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter before their retirement.
All of them took the oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

NONE of them have done their duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”  YET, NONE of them were willing to provide me the protection of the laws!!!!
“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. [4]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[5]. 
EVERYONE involved in the judicial process has immunity for the deprivation of the Protection of the Laws i.e., “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[6]
“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,”
MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163
The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case.  The Damage has been done and is irreversible.  It is Damages or nothing.
Where does a person go for the
Protection of the Laws?

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[7]
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,[8]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[9] 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”[10] 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, July 23, 2011, 3:07:28 PM, 2011 07-22-11 Where does a person go for the Protection of the Laws REV 99RX.doc

[1] “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.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[2] "Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law."  United States v. Classic, supra, 313 U. S. 325-326, Screws v. United States, supra, 325 U. S. 108-113, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 184 (1961)
[3] “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.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[5] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[8] 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"
[9] 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 No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Justice Cannot Sanction Corruption! Good Cannot Sanction Evil! The FLAWS in American Justice Thursday, July 21, 2011, 5:54:51 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011


Justice Cannot Sanction Corruption!
Good Cannot Sanction Evil!
The FLAWS in American Justice
Thursday, July 21, 2011, 5:54:51 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[1]  Justice is and always will be an essential element of any civilization.  For individuals to interact within a civilization there has to be a set of rules of for individual conduct defining the acceptable limits of individual liberty.  Civilization formalizes rules for individual conduct into more formal laws. 
To avoid arbitrary bias Civilization has always had the necessary and proper function to establish Justice for the administration of the laws.  We the People in the beginning of our beginning, the preamble to the Constitution, put forward-most our intent to "establish Justice."[2]
The legal definition of Justice, per Black's Law Dictionary and I would assert any "person of ordinary intelligence,"[3] is "The fair and proper administration of the laws."  By definition Justice cannot sanction the malicious and corrupt administration of the laws.  Malicious and corrupt, again by definition, both, absolutely oppose "fair and proper." 
Justice Cannot Sanction Corruption!
Common Law (non-written) predated what is today referred to as statute law (written).  Common law, yes, had an intrinsic requirement for judicial immunity.  The Judge was the law.  The unwritten Common Law could not be separated from its vessel, the Judge.  The Judicial Officer was the Law and therefore they could not be accountable to the law. 
With our revolution We the People through off the infallible, immune, all-powerful, and unimpeachable pronouncement of law by the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants.  We the People created, "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."[4]  This Constitution, and the Laws stood apart and separate from any individual.  We the People and specifically, the Judges, "in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [5]
Immunity was no longer a possibility nor was judicial immunity an intrinsic requirement of the now WRITTEN LAW.  Every person[6] or Whoever[7] caused the violation or "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[8] could be held accountable to "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States."  Our forefathers having historical precedent and experience of the Magna Carta § 61 and the "repeated Petitions" "for Redress in the most humble terms" of The Declaration of Independence (1776), constitutionally secured for themselves the 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."

And we were fine for 100 years.

The American Judiciary survived and prospered for nearly 100 years (1776-1871) without any need for the self-serving grant of absolute immunity.  The Civil War changed things. 
"A condition of affairs now exists in some States of the Union rendering life and property insecure and the carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous. The proof that such a condition of affairs exists in some localities is now before the Senate.[9] That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities I do not doubt; that the power of the Executive of the United States, acting within the limits of existing laws, is sufficient for present emergencies is not clear. Therefore, I urgently recommend such legislation as in the judgment of Congress shall effectually secure life, liberty, and property, and the enforcement of law in all parts of the United States. . . . "[10]
"States have denied to persons within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The proof on this point is voluminous and unquestionable. . . . [M]en were murdered, houses were burned, women were outraged, men were scourged, and officers of the law shot down, and the State made no successful effort to bring the guilty to punishment or afford protection or redress to the outraged and innocent. The State, from lack of power or inclination, practically denied the equal protection of the law to these persons.[11]"
"That the State courts in the several States have been unable to enforce the criminal laws of their respective States or to suppress the disorders existing, and, in fact, that the preservation of life and property in many sections of the country is beyond the power of the State government, is a sufficient reason why Congress should, so far as they have authority under the Constitution, enact the laws necessary for the protection of citizens of the United States. The question of the constitutional authority for the requisite legislation has been sufficiently discussed."[12] 
"The question is not whether a majority of the people in a majority of the States are likely to be attached to and able to secure their own liberties. The question is not whether the majority of the people in every State are not likely to desire to secure their own rights. It is whether a majority of the people in every State are sure to be so attached to the principles of civil freedom and civil justice as to be as much desirous of preserving the liberties of others as their own as to insure that under no temptation of party spirit, under no political excitement, under no jealousy of race or caste, will the majority, either in numbers or strength, in any State seek to deprive the remainder of the population of their civil rights."[13]
"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.[14]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[15].
The precedents that supposedly created immunity from the Supreme Law of the Land were Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871).  Randall and Bradley were created three years apart and contemporaneous with the passage of the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) that clearly made "whoever" i.e., Judges, statutorily criminally liable for the deprivation of rights and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) that made "Every person" i.e., Judges, statutorily civilly liable. 
"To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible."[16]
Clearly as "Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871."[17]  It should also be noted that in the subsequent 140 years since Bradley (1871) American society has endured the Jim Crow era, the Jane Crow era and the five fold increase in our per capita prison population versus the rest of the world.[18] 
The Supreme Court in the most heinous usurpation of power created the self serving judge made rule of absolute immunity per Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 349 (1871), it states:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of "We the People") to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."  (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)) non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).[19]
The Supreme Court admits that their UNCONSTITUTIONAL grant of absolute immunity, before out of court, protects the "malicious or corrupt judge,"[20] that is a sanction of malice and corruption.  The sanction of malice and corruption violates the meaning and intent of the Constitution's preamble assertion to "establish Justice."[21]
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 345 re-states in different terms a more modern less racially oriented still unconstitutional precedent via Judge Learned Hand's opinion in Gregoire v. Biddle (1950).  I address and include here the larger context of Gregoire while noting the excerpt from Briscoe with a different font: 
"The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried (This is an outright lie or at best a false statement, 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 in the judicial process.), 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 (how is there "inevitable danger" in a system dedicated to justice) of its outcome would dampen the ardor (I unabashedly want to dampen the ardor of those that would maliciously, corruptly or INCOMPETENTLY persecute the innocent) 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,[22] 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..."[23]"[24] (Non-italic parenthetical, emphasis, underlining editing added)[25]
This entire argument is sophistry, false on its FACE, it asserts as a premise "There must indeed be means of punishing public officers" then concludes, with "thought", alone without any justification the complete opposite "it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs" i.e., immunity for "public officers."  "It has been thought" is self-serving sophistry of "public officers" by and for "public officers." 
Secondly to assert "a balance between the evils inevitable" is again sophistry, to obscure the good and promote the evil.  What are the supposed evils?
1.      Prosecuting, "dishonest officers," the wrong doers
2.      Subjecting, "those who try to do their duty," the innocents to a DETERRENT for wrongdoing? 
I say again, where is the evil? That is as it should be.  Those are not evils.  Those are both POSITIVE affirmations of the RULE OF LAW!  It is clear to anyone other than the vested recipient of "absolute immunity" that "absolute immunity" is the EVIL. 
"There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly[26] false testimony by police officers. Footnote 31"
Because of the mens rea and actus reus the criminal parties involved the "knowingly false testimony" is COMPLETELY different from the "misidentification or other unintentional mistake."  And when this "knowingly false testimony" is under color of law via our governmental grant, the government has respondeat superior liability for their actions i.e., that is to say, without the grant of authority from the government the "knowingly false testimony" would not have had the authority or affect of under color of law.   The court thus sanctions the denial of justice with the very real possibility of the "unjustly convicted."  In a system committed to and based on the intent to establish Justice[27] this should be unacceptable?  Footnote 31, as references above provides an additional failed attempt at a justification:
"There is no reason to believe, however, that this risk is any greater than, or indeed as great as, the risk of an unjust conviction resulting from a misidentification or other unintentional mistake. There is no federal damages remedy for such innocent persons, or for those who are acquitted after undergoing the burdens of a criminal trial."
The Supreme Court while asserting a statistical comparison clearly has no basic grasp of statistics.  They attempt through force of their sophistry alone to cover up the risk of "knowingly false testimony" with an asserted equal risk of "misidentification or other unintentional mistake."  Risks are cumulative not overlapping.   For example IF there is a 20 in 1000 risk of "knowingly false testimony" and 100 in 1000 risk of "misidentification or other unintentional mistake" that will result in a 120 in 1000 risk of a wrongful conviction, NOT a 100 in 1000.  The 20 persons in 1000 who were wrongfully convicted, the result of the mens rea and actus reus of a preventable prosecutable crime, "knowingly false testimony."  Where as the 100 in 1000 that were inadvertently convicted, the result of unavoidable human error, there is no one individually criminal or civil responsibility.  There is very little if any difference between being convicted via "misidentification or other unintentional mistake" or being stuck by lighting.  As further example Supreme court's example is like saying, "We are all going to die sometime.  Why worry about how, murder or natural cause?"  The risk of murder, 1/100,000 (.000001%), is insignificant as compared to the inevitability of dying, 100,000/100,000 (100%), so why worry?
Good Cannot Sanction Evil!
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[28] along with the criminals outside the law,[29] 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, The Judiciary Department, 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."[30]
This was ALL almost immediately and 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!!!!!!!!!!


They took my son, they took my home, they took my liberty and I am suppose to just capitulate because they have conjured up out of sophistry and nothingness this corrupt, malicious and incompetent grant of Absolute Immunity???????? 
 "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.[31]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[32]. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[33]
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,[34]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[35] 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"[36] 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, July 21, 2011, 5:54:51 PM, 2011 07-19-11 Bradley, Briscoe and Learned Hand REV 02.doc

[1] The Federalist No. 51, "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison
[2] "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 preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America 1789
[3] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting
[4] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph
[5] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph

[9] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) at Page 365 U. S. 175 This Act of April 20, 1871, sometimes called "the third force bill,'" was passed by a Congress that had the Klan "particularly in mind." The debates are replete with references to the lawless conditions existing in the South in 1871. There was available to the Congress during these debates a report, nearly 600 pages in length, dealing with the activities of the Klan and the inability of the state governments to cope with it. This report was drawn on by many of the speakers. It was not the unavailability of state remedies, but the failure of certain States to enforce the laws with an equal hand that furnished the powerful momentum behind this "force bill."

[10] Excerpted from a message sent to Congress by President Grant on March 23, 1871
[11] Mr. Beatty of Ohio, No. 1, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 428.
[12] Senator Osborn of Florida Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 653
[13] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 334-335
[15] At the ratification of § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[16] Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
[17] Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) (emphasis and underlining added)
[18] ."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. "  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: March 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
[19] Uneditted text from Page 80 U. S. 349 "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."  (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.  ) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967))
[20] Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity).  That is to say also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity"), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (an agency attorney has "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)
[21] "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…" ibid.
[22] Any professional should be able to handle emergency exigent circumstances; but in such cases "Good Faith" could be the presumption.  But because immunity is, before out of court, emergency exigent circumstances, good faith, bad faith, overwhelming proof is never even an ISSUE!!!!!!!!!
[25] Unedited Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950)  "The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, 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 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." 
[26] The operative word here is knowingly.  The act of knowingly doing something makes it first a crime, with mens rea and actus reus.  Because it is then different from and inadvertent mistake
[27] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…" ibid.
[28] wearing badges, suits and the black robes of the police, prosecutors and judges respectively
[29] wearing ski masks and carrying guns
[30] Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
[32] At the ratification of § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[34] 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"
[35] 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 No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 18, 2011

President Barack Hussein Obama, What is a Father, a Son, a Person to do?? Jeep vs. Obama 4:11-cv-0931-CAS / 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 11-2425


President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001
  
Antonin Scalia
c/o W. K. Suter, Clerk of the Court
Untied States Supreme Court
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001
Re:What is a Father, a Son, a Person to do??
       Jeep vs. Obama 4:11-cv-0931-CAS / 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 11-2425

Dear Fathers,
I have suffered for nearly 8 years from the criminal deprivation of my “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[1]  As you should but may not be aware, I have petitioned you all BEFORE, the denial of my rights has been over my then attorneys of record’s and my timely and repeated motions and objections PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-trial.  And in the nearly 8 years since I have been relentlessly writing letters, filing complaints, e-mailing, appealing, petitioning the State of Missouri Attorney General, State of Missouri Governor, U. S. Federal Courts, U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, United States Supreme Court, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marshall Service, United States Attorney General, Local Federal Attorney and President of the United States both Bush and Obama for a redress of grievances the protection of the law, my “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[2]

The evidence of the deprivations is manifest,
undeniable, uncontested and ONLINE.

After 8 years with manifest, undeniable and uncontested proof of criminal malice, corruption and incompetence, any possibility of a GOOD FAITH defense is out the window, where do I go for the protection of the law?
I am told via the BULLSHIT, Thomas Jefferson would politely say sophistry,[3] of the supreme court precedent that to constrain the Judges, Prosecutors, Police i.e., “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[4] within the limits of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[5] is impossible, liability for “rights” is too limiting.  The Judges, Prosecutors, Police i.e., “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[6] can not “exercise their functions”[7] or “do their duty”[8] if they are asked to take on the incorporated governmental civil and individual criminal liability for performing their “functions”[9] or “duty” [10] within the limitations of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[11]  I may not be a lawyer but that sounds like the Supreme Court is at war with the constitution, in essence saying the constitution is impossible?
They taught me when I was a boy in school that I lived in the United States of America.  They taught me to be PROUD.  We were free.  We had rights.  I was taught I had the protection of the laws, that I had “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[12]  Now I discover some 40 years later that was a lie. 

What do I tell my son??

You are fathers; I have to explain what has happen to me to my son.  What do I tell my son?  “The laws, the constitution they mean nothing.”  The Judges, Prosecutors, Police i.e., “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[13] are not bound by “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[14]  They can take your children, take your home, take anything and EVERYTHING and there is nothing you can do about it.  There is no Due Process of Law constitutional congressionally un-abridge-able First Amendment Right to a redress of grievances for the deprivations!!!  Not only do you not have constitutional protection you do not have the statutory protection of the Rule of Law Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985!!!

As a son, how do I face the memory of my
Father?

How do I, as a son, face the memory of my Father as a court ordered abuser and a repeatedly convicted drunk.  Can he see? Will he know?  It is all based on fraud via the denial of Due Process of Law.  Will he be able to see that I never did any of those things the court order said I did?  Do I have to explain? “The Good Name you gave me is dishonored but I could not help it!”

How do I start again as a person?

How do I start again as a person?  Knowing that at any time the Judges, Prosecutors, Police i.e., “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[15] can at anytime willfully, maliciously, corruptly or incompetently destroy what I have REBUILT without regard to “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[16]

Do we have to have another revolutionary war to get the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America that were supposedly secured by the first revolutionary war????

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 Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 9:46:45 AM


David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.       “My son is being raised by CRIMINALS”

cc:  My Blog - Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 9:46:45 AM
My son is being raised by CRIMINALS
The FLAW in American Justice
Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 9:46:45 AM
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"[17] 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.”[18] That is to say also the “malicious or corrupt” Prosecutor,[19] Police and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process”[20]:
“This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,[21] 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"[22] (Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[23] @ 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 conjured up out of sophistry and nothingness this corrupt, malicious and incompetent grant of 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 (This is an outright lie or at best a false statement, 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 in the judicial process.), 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 maliciously, corruptly or INCOMPETENTLY persecute the innocent) 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,[24] 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...”[25] (Non-italic parenthetical editing and emphasis added)
This entire argument is sophistry, 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[26] along with the criminals outside the law,[27] 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, The Judiciary Department, 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."[28]
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.[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 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”[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)
Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 9:46:45 AM, 2011 07-18-11 Obama and Scalia - Speak, father, speak to your little boy  - REV 99RX.doc

[3] “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.” The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[8] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[10] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[17] 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
[18] 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)
[19] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”)
[20] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[21] 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”
[23] 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.
[24] Any professional should be able to handle emergency exigent circumstances; but in such cases “Good Faith” could be the presumption.  But because immunity is, before out of court, emergency exigent circumstances, good faith, bad faith, overwhelming proof is never even an ISSUE!!!!!!!!!
[25] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[26] wearing badges and the black robes of a judge
[27] wearing ski masks and carrying guns
[28] Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
[30] At the ratification of § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) 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 No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)