ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER
ABSOLUTE POWER corrupts absolutely[1]
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Monday, February 13, 2012, 3:35:03 PM
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute
power corrupts absolutely."[5] If Supreme Court PRECEDENT does not prove that
maxim I must be insane:
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY empowers the "malicious
or corrupt" judges,[6] the "malicious
or dishonest" prosecutor, [7] the "knowingly
false testimony by police officers"[8] and "all
(malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[9]) persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[10]
acting under color of law.
"This provision of the law is not for
the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of
the public, whose (RIGHTS are being deprived) interest it is that
the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions (without regard
to any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States of America"[11])
with independence, and without fear of consequences." parenthetical
text added for clarity Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.
335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 350
The Supreme Court has corrupted
its purpose, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority", Article 3. Section
2, The Constitution for the United States of America, into ABSOLUTE POWER!
We the People have fallen under the
despotic[12]
spell of the concentrated power[13]
in the CORRUPT Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious
or corrupt" judges,[14]
the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [15]
the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[16]
and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[17])
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process" [18]
acting under color of law.
The blanket governmental grant of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY takes us back
in time to before The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61[19]),
the first modern attempt at limiting government. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER[20]!!!!!!
"This immunity applies even when the
judge (or anyone integral to the Judicial Process) is accused of acting maliciously
and corruptly."[21]
"To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without
(JUSTICE… justice without equity considerations impoverishes its victims in
pursuit of Justice) civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest
action deprives him of liberty."[22] "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 false testimony by
police officers."[23] In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts "absolute
immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts
of the judicial process." [24]
"Absolute immunity"
is a denial of the constitutional guarantee of Due Process of Law,[25]
"extrajudicial"[26]
an "unlawful Conspiracy" [27]
"before out of Court"[28]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I sometimes feel like the waif in the Danish
parable "The
Emperor's New Cloths."[29]
Am I the only one that can
see it?
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is corrupting our
Justice system. 100 years of Jim Crow
can be directly linked to the not coincidental timing of the two initiating Supreme
Court precedents,[30]
Randall (1868) and
Bradley (1871), and
the passage of § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act[31]
that clearly made "whoever" i.e., Judges, statutorily criminally
liable for the deprivation of rights and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[32]
that clearly made "Every person" i.e., Judges, statutorily civilly liable
for the deprivation of rights.
NOTE: Randall (1868) gave
the Judiciary ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from criminal prosecution for the deprivation
of rights without any reference to the clear - two year old - legislative intent
§ 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make "whoever" i.e.,
Judges, criminally liable and Bradley (1871) gave the
Judiciary ABSOLUTE[33]
POWER[34]
and ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from criminal and civil prosecution for the deprivation
of rights without any reference to the clear - not even a year old - legislative
intent of § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act "Every person" i.e.,
Judges civilly liable. This was naively never
even question until it was all corruptly condoned and confirmed in 1967 with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S.
547.
We the People have since Randall (1868) and
Bradley (1871) lived
in the ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY era, where we NOW incarcerate 5 times[35]
as many people per capita
as the rest of the world. We incarcerate
more people per capita in
our modern police state, one in 100 adults,[36]
than most of the infamous police states in modern history, Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany,
Mao Zedong's China, and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.
"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. No act… therefore, contrary to the Constitution,
can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm,
that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master;
that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that
men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize,
but what they forbid."[37]
"The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."[38]
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 the Supreme Court, a delegated authority,
acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute
immunity" [39]
from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid"[40]
i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[41]
We
the People have fallen under the despotic[42]
spell of the concentrated power[43]
in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious
or corrupt" judges,[44]
the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [45]
the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[46]
and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[47])
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process" [48]
acting under color of law.
That is INSANITY!!!!
Now if you go back to the Divine Right of Kings,
before The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61[49]),
the there was no liability for His chief justice, His officials, or any of His servants. That was then. THIS IS NOW! We the People threw off that form
of government with our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights
to establish a government of the People, by the People and FOR
the People.
Now the Supreme Court likes to allude to a
Common Law Justification for immunity, it does not exist, it NEVER HAS as regards
the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[50] Why did We the People write a constitution
as the Supreme Law of the Land[51]
if per Common Law it would have no binding effect? I mean why would We the People even
have put our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights on paper
if it were not our intention to incorporate ourselves into government to indemnify
each others "rights, privileges, or immunities"[52]
with the First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able[53]
right to petition our government of the People, by the People and
FOR the People for redress of grievances acknowledging its source in the
Magna Carta 1215 (§ 61[54])?
Now King George
III of England ignored the colonist repeated petitions prior to the Declaration
of Independence[55]
based on their legal rights under The Great Charter of the Liberties
of England, the Magna Carta (1215 § 61), and The Petition of Right 1628[56]
for redress of their grievances and they sent him the Declaration of Independence.
Our corrupt Judiciary is
just as ignorant and CORRUPT as King George
III. I have sent NUMEROUS petitions[57]
to attempt to settle my grievances, to date all have been DENIED!!!!
"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."[58] Now granted we will never obtain justice perfected
but the never ending search for that elusive perfection is what gives life meaning. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY blocks that pursuit. But, this is not an issue of theoretical Justice,
this is a common sense issue "give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair
notice"[59]
based on established Due Process of Law as prescribed by Supreme Court's own prior
PRECEDENT. The only issue is in HOLDING
the Judges, the Prosecutors and the Police liable for their own VERIFIABLE unconstitutional,
malicious, corrupt and incompetent actions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We the People cannot even bring
the corruption, malice and incompetence of our Judges, Prosecutors and Police Persons
to court because they have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
See Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The
Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY
ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY,
without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[60]
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,
law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people
on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[61]
grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[62]
by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
and "unlawful Conspiracy"[63]
"before out of Court"[64]
to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[65]
"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. [66] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
respectively said it originally in 1871[67].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice[69] 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,[70]"
denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and
congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[71]
with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[72]
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"[73]"
for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[74]
e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[75]
"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."
I have referenced "To
Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I
do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are
generally known. The abuses are happening
EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[76]
Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [77]
Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[78]
and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[79] The fact that "With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported
prisoners"[80]
PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and
everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, February 13, 2012, 3:35:03 PM, 2012 02-13-12
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY REV 01
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228
[1] "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: Beacon Press, p.
364
[2] "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 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,
"The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent
Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical
text added for emphasis.
[3] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug.
8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[4] 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
[5] "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: Beacon Press, p.
364
[6] 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.
[9] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[10] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental
or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[12] 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. Driving each classification
of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle".
This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the
citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly.
For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics),
this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests
of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love
of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for
despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently have
a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[13] "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: Beacon Press, p.
364
[14] 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.
[17] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental
or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[19] "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."
[20] "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: Beacon Press, p.
364
[21] 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
[26] Lord Coke Floyd
and Barker (1607) ""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."
[29] ""The Emperor's New Clothes"
(Danish:
Kejserens
nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who
promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their
positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects
in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"
The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages." Wikipedia
[30] Congress makes the LAW not the Judiciary, JUSTICE
MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, except as to Part I, dissenting Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 362 (1983) "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal
sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub
silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches
the incredible. [Footnote 2/27] Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially
judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act,
notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, Page 460 U. S. 363 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."
[33] "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: Beacon Press, p.
364
[34] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.
S. 352 "But if on the other hand a judge of a criminal court, invested
with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district,
should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made
an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act,
or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized
by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for
such acts would attach to the judge, although those acts would be in excess of his
jurisdiction, or of the jurisdiction of the court held by him, for these are particulars
for his judicial consideration, whenever his general jurisdiction over the subject
matter is invoked." This in effect
nullifies the prohibition of ex-post facto laws U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3,
art. I § 10 cl. 1. Per Bradley (1871) a Judge
can do whatever they might want disregarding our rights or the existence or need
of any legislative or statutory law!!!! And
this was and is all a unlawful ministerial grant by and for ministers!!!!
[35] "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
[36] U.S. Imprisons One in
100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February
29, 2008
[37] FEDERALIST No. 78 "The Judiciary Department"
From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 Alexander Hamilton
[38] The Constitution for the United States of America,
Article III. Section. 1. "The judicial Power of the United States shall"
[39] "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
[40] 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"
[42] 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. Driving each classification
of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle".
This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the
citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly.
For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics),
this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests
of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love
of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for
despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic
system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[43] "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: Beacon Press, p.
364
[44] 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.
[47] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[48] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental
or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[49] "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."
[51] Constitution for the United States of America Article.
VI. Second paragraph – "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." There is NO IMMUNITY from the Supreme Law of the
Land, especially as noted "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
[53] The Colonist had read their history, unlike the
Supreme Court, they had seen King John in 1215 almost immediately try to wriggle
out His commitments to a right to petition for a redress of grievances less
than a year after He signed it with the assist of Pope Innocent III. Our forefathers had hoped to avoid that issue
by constitutionally, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, stating "Congress shall
make no law abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances."
For the Supreme Court to attempt to wriggle out of it by ministerially nullifying
the constitutional intent with their ministerial assertion of immunity is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The founders had most recently seen King George
III ignore right to petition for a redress of grievances in The
Declaration of Independence i.e., "In every stage of these Oppressions
We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions
have been answered only by repeated injury"
[54] "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."
[55] "In every stage of these Oppressions We
have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by
every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." The
Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration
of the thirteen united States of America
[56] The Petition of Right speaks to immunity/ an exemption
i.e., Section of "IX. And also sundry grievous offenders, by color thereof
claiming an exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and
statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of your officers and ministers
of justice have unjustly refused or forborne to proceed against such offenders according
to the same laws and statutes, upon pretense that the said offenders were punishable
only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid; which commissions,
and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
and statutes of this your realm."
[57] Eighth Circuit U.S. Court Of Appeals 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip
Jones, Sr.; 08-1823 David Jeep
vs. Jack Bennett; 09-2848 David Jeep vs. United
States; 10-1947 David Jeep
vs. United States; 11-2425 David Jeep vs. Barack
Obama, President;
[58] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government
Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For
the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February
6, 1788. James Madison
[59] As recently quoted by SCALIA, J., dissenting in
SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, United States v. Batchelder,
442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o
one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the
meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S.
453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore
invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice
that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss,
347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou
v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162
(1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113.
[60] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR
YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures
the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from
the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of
the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment's secures the right
to settle all disputes/suits: "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" assures justice
as regards equity.
[61] 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.
[62] "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
[63] 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."
[68] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief
Justice John G. Roberts in Connick, District
Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[70] 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
[71] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law
abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[72] 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.
[73] "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
[75] 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.
[79] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and
Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[80] "With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported
prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "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
