US Mail First Class Tuesday March 27, 2012
Barry C. Scheck & Peter J. Neufeld
Innocence Project
40 Worth St., Suite 701
New York, NY 10013
Re: Accountability, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211, Motion for Rehearing DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2012
Dear Sirs,
Is there any moral difference between a thief with a gun demanding your money on the street and a judge behind a bench in black robes with a gavel demanding your money in a courtroom who knowingly steps outside of the procedural and substantive protections of Due Process?[1]
The FEAR MONGERS that want to sell their self serving POWER assert that We the People's Justice System, the prosecutors, the police and "the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences."[3] And if we deny them their absolute immunity we will live in the constant FEAR of ANARCHY… the overwhelming and unavoidability of "vexatious"[4] or calumnious[5] actions.
"With independence, and without fear of consequences" in Supreme Court speak means without regard to the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." [6]
Immunity, be it judicial, prosecutorial or witness (police), by definition is diametrically opposed to the Rule of Law.[7] What we have to ask ourselves is do we live under the rule of law that is knowable to a "person of ordinary intelligence"[8] or is civility as expressed and defined by We the People by way of The Declaration of Independence, a constitution,[9] the Bill of Rights, treaties[10] made and the rule of law[11] too sophisticated for a "person of ordinary intelligence?" To those that say civility is unknowable "the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by (judges) his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." [12]
I can testify to the massive, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[13] insidious "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[14] "before out of Court"[15] of judicial immunity in the Jim Crow Era[16] and Jane Crow Era.[17]
The Innocence Project can clearly, with DNA evidence, assert the massive, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[18] insidious "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[19] "before out of Court"[20] in the plea bargain / exclusionary rule of prosecutorial immunity era.
The Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, December 1, 1998 AND the Supreme Court precedent clearly asserts the massive, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[21] insidious "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[22] "before out of Court"[23] of "testilying"[24] immunity for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[25] era e.g., 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." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
This is not about corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[26] death row cases alone. This DOES NOT have to be verified by DNA evidence this is about a conspicuous, massive, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[27] "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[28] "before out of Court"[29] throughout our JUSTICE SYSTEM, from misdemeanor traffic court to capital case and criminal cases to civil cases.
I got reacquainted with the "Innocence Project" from a recent 60 Minutes piece "Evidence of Innocence: The case of Michael Morton" in Texas. Mr Scheck asserted it is not a new wave of prosecutorial, police or judicial corruption. I have to agree, It is the YEARS if not decades and centuries of absolute unaccountability of the justice system's judiciary, prosecutors, and police.
HELP!!!! Please review my BLOG at
for more details
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
[1] "coram non judice" Amendment V & XIV US Constitution
[2] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) 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 (probable casue) 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. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[3] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher (1871), supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[4] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "prevent them (our judges and justice system) being harassed by vexatious actions," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[5] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
"In addressing the consequences of subjecting judges (and/or "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)) to suits for damages under § 1983, the Court has commented:
"Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision making but to intimidation."
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 554. (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976) [Footnote 26])."
[7] Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law Tuesday, August 10, 2010 http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2010/09/immunity-is-diametrically-opposed-to.html
[8] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) ibid.
[9] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable 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 secures the right to settle all 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.
[10] "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights " PART II, Article 2, Section 3)
[12] Thomas Jefferson To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[13] Incompetence is the most insidious of human evils; but especially, if it is denied and covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[16] "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 Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967). Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871, Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394.
[18] Incompetence, ibid.
[21] Incompetence, ibid.
[24] Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, December 1, 1998 AND "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." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[25] absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983)
[26] Incompetence, ibid.
[27] Incompetence, ibid.
Thanks in advance
To 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
