Monday, February 27, 2012

Justice is a Pitiful Farce In the United States of America


Justice is a Pitiful Farce In the
United States of America
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
a country in which nobody[1] is ever truly safe.”[2]
Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 9:02:41 AM
“The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't”[3]
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

     Justice is a pitiful farce in the United States of America today.  The inalienable right to Justice is devoid of the essential equity consideration,[4] via Supreme Court of the United States precedent.  Justice without EQUITY consideration impoverishes its victims in pursuit of Justice at the hands of the evil that unjustly oppresses them.  This Supreme Court Precedent is in DIRECT and uncontrovertibly unconstitutional conflict with the injustice based on the 1st and 7th Amendment remedies[5] provided for by the Constitution for the United States of America. 
The Supreme Court of the United States of America precedent sanctions uninhibited malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence.[6]  The history of the Jim Crow era[7] in post Civil War America[8] is PROOF.  If African Americans in the south could have gotten the EQUITY provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified into U.S. Code of Law as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, there would not have been any racial inequality post CIVIL WAR in the United States of America. 
     This judicial sanction, in the United States of America TODAY, still unashamedly empowers “malicious or corrupt” judges,[9] “malicious or dishonest” prosecutors, [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 for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[14] via the DENAIL of EQUITY consideration in direct conflict with the 1st and 7th Amendment remedies[15] provided for by the Constitution for the United States of America.  
     "This immunity applies even when the judge (or all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons) is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[16]  “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without (JUSTICE… justice without equity considerations irrefutably impoverishes its victims in pursuit of their inalienable right to Justice) civil redress against (all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[17]) persons) a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."[18]  “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 (all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[19]) persons) police officers"[20] (YA THINK?). In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[21] thereby limiting Justice to only those that can afford the open ended unlimited investment of time and money.
     We the People thus have no security for “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,”[22] much less a “redress of grievances”[23] as if they were NOBILITY.[24]
The sophistry (bullshit) of the Supreme Court tries to justify its corruption by asserting “vexatious actions”[25] or “continual Calumniations,”[26] “it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, 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 “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[27]) 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)) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity).
     PLEASE, tell me how We the People benefit from the willful unrestrained “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”[28]

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     The police, the prosecutor and the Judge are "representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done… It is as much their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”[29]  The police, the prosecutor and the Judge should all work in UNISON to do “their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction”[30] and exposed the inconsistent FRAUDULENT racially biased allegations for the bold face FRAUD that it was “before out of court”[31] so as to avoid “vexatious actions”[32] or “continual Calumniations”[33]for “We the People.”  The ENDS of Justice require the constitutionally commissioned efforts of competent good faith efforts of those persons constitutionally commissioned to govern JUSTICE.
     “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.”[34]
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”[35]
     There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility to wit, “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” [36] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[37] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[38]  This is corruption on a massive scale!
ABSOLUTE POWER corrupts absolutely![39]
     We the People have fallen under the despotic[40] spell of the concentrated power[41] in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[42] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [43] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[44] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[45]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [46] acting under color of law. 
     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,[47] 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[48] grant of “Absolute Immunity,”[49] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and “unlawful Conspiracy”[50] “before out of Court”[51] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[52]
     “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. [53]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[54]. 
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[55]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[56] 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,[57]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[58] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[59] 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"[60]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[61] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,”[62] “The Exclusionary Rule,”[63] “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),[64] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [65] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[66] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[67]   The fact that “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners”[68] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 9:02:41 AM, 2012 02-21-12 Justice is a Wretched Farce In the United States of America 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] “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.
[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] Justice without regard to equity irrefutably 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 (justifiable injury) 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 justice as regards equity with the right: “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”.
[5] The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance (justifiable injury) 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.
[6] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[7] The Jim Crow laws were racially discriminatory state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965.
[8] On May 4, 1884, a train conductor Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad ordered Ida B. Wells to give up her seat and move to the smoking car, which was already crowded with other passengers.  Wells refused to give up her seat, 71 years before the activist Rosa Parks showed similar resistance on a bus. The conductor and two men dragged Wells out of the car.  She sued and won in the district court.  But the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It 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."   Ida B. Wells’ suit was not “vexatious” or calumnious it was a SUIT for JUSTICE law and equity.  Imagine if she and others had been able to sue for Justice Law and Equity post Civil War.  We could have avoided 150 years of continuing racial unrest.
[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.
[10] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[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” (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[15] The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance (justifiable injury) 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.
[16] 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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[17] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[18] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[19] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[20] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[21] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all persons (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[22] “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.”  Preamble to the Constitution for the United states of America
[23] 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[24] 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."
[25] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[26] Floyd and Barker (1607)
[29] Due Process of Law as described in Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
[30] Due Process of Law as described in Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
[31] Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607)  “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”
[32] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[33] Floyd and Barker (1607)
[34] FEDERALIST No. 78 “The Judiciary Department” From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 Alexander Hamilton
[35] The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. Section. 1. “The judicial Power of the United States shall”
[36] “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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[37] 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”
[39] "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 Dahlberg-Acton (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[40] 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 a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[41] "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
[42] 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.
[43] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[44] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[45] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[46] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[47] Justice without regard to equity irrefutably 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 (justifiable injury) 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.
[48] 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.
[49] “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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[50] 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.”
[53] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[54] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[56] The redress of a justifiable grievance (justifiable injury)REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[57] 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
[58] 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[59] 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.
[60] “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
[62] 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) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity).
[63] It should be noted that in a civil dispute, where we ALL HAVE RIGHTS, the exclusionary rule is meaningless.
[67] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[68] “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













Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,