The Slovenly and Slothful
Supreme Court
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Thursday, November 17, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
Absolute Immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were (malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent[4] or gave "knowingly false testimony" as) integral parts of the judicial process"[5] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[6] as currently enforced exemplifies the slovenliness and sloth of our Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Our Supreme Court is slovenly in that they are now SLOPPY with their grant of blanket absolute immunity "for all persons." Our Supreme Court is slothfully in that they are lazily granting blanket absolute immunity for the deprivation of rights rather than do there job adjudicate and set individual precedent for cases. The Supreme Court is in essence saying that their judicial process is ALWAYS right and We the People have no rights worth enforcing. The Supreme Court abdicated their responsibility; the Supreme Court cares NOT who's rights are deprived. Immunity was NEVER historically intended to be blanket or absolute.
It was the corrupt Supreme Court in Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) that blanketed it and made it absolute. Randall and Bradley should be conspiratorially suspect in that they were created three years apart and contemporaneously and in direct conflict with the constitutional congressional 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.[7]
That Randall and Bradley reach back 264 years to Lord Coke with Floyd and Barker in 1607 (1871-1607=264) in the Star Chamber[8] for a skewed interpretation from a corrupt court for a common law to over come We the People's intent to have the Constitution as the Supreme Law of Land[9] in what I asserts as a criminal unconstitutional conspiracy to void Supreme Court Precedent for superseding common law[10] and current congressional intent to stipulate criminal and civil liability[11]
Absolute Immunity as originated by Lord Coke with Floyd and Barker in 1607 was born in a Royal age of the proclamation. Proclamations were, then, the primary means of governance at common law. The King made and the Judge imposed the law by merely proclaiming it, there was no need to elucidate. Absolute Immunity as pronounced by Lord Coke with Floyd and Barker in 1607 in the Star Chamber[12] as:
"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."[13]
And Records are of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the Record itself; and in this point the Law is founded upon great reason; for if the Judiciall matters of Record should be drawn in question, by partial and sinister supposals and averments of Offenders, or any on their behalf, there never will be an end of Causes: But Controversies will be infinite; Et infinitum in jure reprobatur[14]…
And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations, for which reason the Orator said well, invigilandum est semper, multae insidiae sunt bonis.[15]
In that time in that world that was how things were done. They would not, could they even fathom the concept of debate on any subject, and they need explain NOTHING. They literally could not allow questioning or the whole house of cards, the divine right of kings, would fall. Immunity was not really and issue because the King nor any of his men could do anything wrong. Again Lord Coke with Floyd and Barker in 1607 in the Star Chamber[16]:
"Judges of the Realm have the administration of Justice under the King, to all his Subjects, they ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption, which extends to the annihilating of a Record, or of any judiciall proceedings before them, or tending to the Slander of the Justice of the King, which will trench to the scandal of the King himself."
But Lord Coke himself was about to change things, in 1610 three years later, The Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22 Coke declared the King to be subject to the law, and the laws of Parliament to be void if in violation of "common right and reason". The American Revolution in 1776 took things quite a bit further!
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[17] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[18] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[19] "before out of Court"[20] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[21]
"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. [22] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[23].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[24]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[25]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[26] 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"[27]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[28] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[29] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and 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, November 17, 2011, 11:56:45 AM, 2011 11-17-11 The Slovenly and Slothful Supreme Court REV 01.doc
[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child (or a thief) with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[4] Incompetence is the most insidious of evils; it is covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[5] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all persons parenthetical text added fro clarity
[7] The Congressional Statute intent to create Judicial liability was in the Congressional Record of debate on the issues in 1866 and 1871 several times repeated and those intentions have been several times made into precedent in the Supreme Court, i.e., "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." Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871. Justice William O. Douglas said it in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967). Justice Marshall's in dissent Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), Page 460 U. S. 362 is perhaps the BEST!!!!!!!!!!
[8] The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was a CORRUPT English court that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until abolished 1641. Where the higher nobility could attack the lower level nobility without regard to the common law by use of the ex officio oath. The ex officio oath was an oath that required personal incrimination.
[9] The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph: "This Constitution, and the Laws[9] of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties[9] 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"
[10] "(I)it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
"It is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." "It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone
[11] § 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" Civilly liable.
[12] The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was a CORRUPT English court where the higher nobility could attack the lower level nobility of the age could attack each other without regard to the common law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until abolished 1641.
[13] Floyd and Barker (1607). (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber. First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[14] Ed.: And the infinite is to be disapproved in Law.
[15] Ed.: one must always be on one's guard, for in good things there are many snares.
[16] The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was a CORRUPT English court where the higher nobility could attack the lower level nobility of the age could attack each other without regard to the common law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until abolished 1641.
[17] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[18] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[19] 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."
[22] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[23] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[25] 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" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
[26] 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.
[27] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[29] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
--
Thanks in advanceTo Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
