Sunday, January 29, 2012 -- sent Tuesday January 17, 2012
President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
-
Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al – Writ of Certiorari 11-8211
A formal DOCKETED petition in the Supreme Court of the United States of America
Dear Mr. President,
You could do you your job with just a wisp of human compassion[1] and OFFICIALLY take responsibility for the ongoing massive criminal CORRUPTION that preceded your administration[2] but is now overwhelming it. Or you could obsequiously continue to support the massive criminal corruption of “deliberate indifference.”[3]
Immunity ministerially[4] granted by “public Ministers” for “public Ministers” is criminal and repugnant to the Constitution, the rule of law and the essence of civilized society… the protection of the laws.[5] Again this is corruption on a massive scale.[6] “False and malicious persecutions”[7] are empowered “before out of court”[8] all over America by a blanket grant of absolute immunity to “malicious or corrupt” judges,[9] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [10] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[11] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[12]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [13] acting under color of law. How are We the People to overcome this gratuitous immunity as if they were nobility?
There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
How can yourself and or a judge, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves absolute immunity from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[14] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[15]
Governmental accountability has been essential and at issue since at least the Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, originally established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
Additionally we have lost the separation of powers[16] essential to a healthy democracy. We the People have fallen under the spell of the despotic[17] concentrated power in the Supreme Court that sanctions “malicious or corrupt” judges,[18] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor,[19] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[20] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[21]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [22] acting under color of law. As Montesquieu, in “De l'Espirit des Lois” (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) would have put it, We the People have lost the “the requisite love of virtue” that is fundamental to “democratic republics.” Please, I say again PLEASE, lead us BACK!!!!!
Do I have to light myself on fire like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi to get your attention in the land of the free and home of the brave? It would be Free Speech[23] and I have the paperwork to prove I am competent.[24] “We the People” have inviolable and inalienable rights in this country. People who reject or deny those natural rights as sovereign are the insane ones.
You say you do not want to open up another can of worms for litigation abuse e.g., “medical malpractice litigation.”[25] That assertion assumes this to be a much larger problem than even I claim it to be. Yes there may well be an extravagant initial expense because of the pent-up demand for Justice. But that will subside to manageable levels as asserted by William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967):
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of.
While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged."
“With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.”[26] We currently incarcerate our people at a rate five orders of magnitude higher than the average worldwide. I would say we have some room to give with our conviction rates.
I remind you of Ida Bell Wells-Barnett (July 16, 1862 – March 25, 19 31), Wells refused to give up her seat, 71 years before the activist Rosa Parks showed similar resistance on a bus. I am sure you are aware Ms. Wells sued for a seat on that train in 1884. Ms. Wells won her case in the local circuit court December 24, 18 84, when the local circuit court granted her a $500[27] settlement. But the award was overturned by the absolutely immune Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's 7th Amendment[28] ruling in 1885. The absolutely immune Tennessee Supreme Court concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride." Wells was ordered to pay court costs punitively and humiliatingly.
Just imagine if Wells could have gotten her unfettered rights as the product of the “love of virtue” in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1875[29] without the absolutely immune corrupt, malicious and incompetent[30] JUDICIAL interference. We might have well been able to avoid nearly a hundred and fifty years of ONGOING social unrest.
Ministerially[31] created Immunity is, and has ALWAYS been, repugnant to the rule of law, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the essence of civilized society… the protection of the laws!!!!!!
I have literally nothing left to lose.
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”
David G. Jeep
cc: please see to a copy for Donald B. Verrilli Jr. I am indigent and without $.44 for postage
a select group of e-mail favorites
file
[1] Or possibly “love of virtue” as conceived by Montesquieu, in “De l'Espirit des Lois” (1748) (The Spirit of the Law)
[2] See petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 Jeep v. Jones - Petition DENIED Oct 6 2008 .
[4] 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.
[5] “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. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court” Chief Justice John Marshal Quoting Blackstone into Supreme Court stare decisis binding to all that follow. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)
[6] This was started by the Nixonian era of FEAR MONGERING and institutionalized by the Berger and Rehnquist courts.
[7] 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.”
[9] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[12] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[13] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[14] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, “The Judiciary Department”
[16] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston
[17] Montesquieu in his “De l'Espirit des Lois” (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic.. As he defines them, Republican political systems vary depending on how broadly they extend citizenship rights -- those that extend citizenship relatively broadly are termed democratic republics, while those that restrict citizenship more narrowly are termed aristocratic republics. We the People have despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America
[18] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[21] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[22] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[23] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that Free Speech cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
[24] I have had TWO psychological examines, at the government’s expense attesting to my competency. See Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP
[25] Persons are exposed to the Health Care at a much higher rate than to the Legal System thus any claim rate would be comensuratly greatly reduced.
[26] “Why We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009 , U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008 , Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
[27] At 5% inflation for 128 years approximately $257,750.96 in today’s DOLLARS
[28] 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.”
[29] The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875.
The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison.
However, the law was rarely enforced, especially after the 1876 presidential election and withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Finally, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.
[30] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[31] 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.
