Where does a person go for
DUE PROCESS of Law??
The FLAW in American Justice
Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 11:06:49 AM
Where does a person go for DUE PROCESS of Law, when all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process have absolute immunity[1] for the deprivation of Due Process of LAW?
It is an “unlawful Conspiracy”[2] “before out of Court”[3] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions , to such whom he(she) knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty”[4] combined with unconstitutional and unequal protection of the law[5]?????
It is a "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)
“Mr. Burchard of Illinois
"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[6] 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 (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 177 (1961))
This all started eight years ago with the misuse of power, the deprivation of rights instigated by two self-confessed, on the witness stand under oath, INCOMPETENT police officers. If I had NOT been denied the exculpable material[7] I had requested pretrial I could have proven their INCOMPETENCE on the stand under oath. As it was they were clothed with the authority of state law and I had been unconstitutionally denied the exculpable proof of their incompetence.
In court, the first case[8] started when Judge Bennett held me overnight without probable cause on an infamous charge without allowing me the barest minimum Due Process, to be heard on the LACK of probable cause.[9] 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 in the second and more personally important case.[10]
Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones both ordered me held without probable cause[11] on an infamous unrelated charge, an ex parte order of protection, based on Judge Bennett’s unrelated bad act alone and without access to Due Process of Law.
At the Due Process hearing the specifics of the ex parte order of protection were changed, on the fly, by Commissioner Jones without notice or specificity. 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.”[12] 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. Everything was taken from me, MY SON, my home everything I ever cared for, I was literally thrown out on to the street a physical and emotional[13] WRECK.
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 infamous charge (DWI) withheld exculpable material[14] 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, after I acquired the denied exculpable material POST-trial, 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, on the witness stand under oath, INCOMPETENT police officers I have contacted then Attorney General State of Missouri Jay Nixon, Sheriff of Camden County, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Barabra Wallace then Presiding[15] Judge 21st Circuit Court St. Louis County, MO, 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, 10-1947, 11-2425), Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) Raymond Meyer (AUSA), Charles A. Shaw US District Judge (4:10-CV-101-TCM & 4:11-cv-0931-CAS), US 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
“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. [16] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
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
“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 a largely civil 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?
EVERYBODY has IMMUNITY!!
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,[20]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[21] 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”[22] 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, July 26, 2011, 11:06:49 AM, 2011 07-24-11 Where does a person go for Due Process of Law REV 01.doc
[1] 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.”
[2] 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.”
[5] In the resent ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 the Supreme Court re-established UNEQUAL protection of the law insisting that Thompson could not recover redress of his grievances because of limited (UNEQUAL protection) liability requirement. Thompson had not proven others in a timely and similar fashion had also been deprived of their rights by Connick. The UNEQUAL PROTECTION violates the 14th Amendment’s secured Equal Protection “No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Thompson and the first 15 +/- victims can NOT redress their grievances but the 16-100 +/- victims can redress their grievances, that is UNEQUAL PROTECTION. Or is it all a scam to give the government the RANDOM ability to terrorize its victims at will, as long as they do not repeat that same violation too CONSISTENTLY.
[6] “Jane Crow,” sexual discrimination in Family for the Mother over the Father
[7] “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)
[8] Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 (rehearing) 08-1823, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW, CR203-1336M
[9] "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)
[10] Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 072614, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-12243 / 03FC-10670M
[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)
[12] 'The principal purpose of the information is to provide the defendant with a description of the charges against him in sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his defense.' James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 333 (1994).
[13] "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, 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
[14] “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)
[15] As representation for the discretionary 21st circuit Court’s en banc employment of Commissioner Jones
[17] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[19] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[20] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America
[21] 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
