THE WRONG
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
Friday, March 30, 2012, 6:46:48 AM
THE WRONG, the undisputed, indisputable RECORD
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) @ Page 220.
The constitutionally commissioned judges, prosecutor and police are “representative 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. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his 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.
It is fair to say that the average (PERSON and/or) jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none” Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
- I was a white, 46-year-old, taxpaying, middle class, male, natural born (July 1956) citizen of the
- In May of 2003 the police in
- Judge Bennett had no probable cause,[9] and thus no jurisdiction to arrest me, revoke my bond and put me in jail at the preliminary hearing in
- Judge Goeke had no probable cause,[11] and thus no jurisdiction under Constitutional law (see Pages 29-30 of the Case 07-2614 Date Filed
- Commissioner Jones, in an inferior court with limited jurisdiction, asserted his jurisdiction over an issue lacking probable cause and thus had no authority to take jurisdiction. He then denied me the comprehensive procedural and substantive protections of Due Process of Law[13] and forced me illegally and unconstitutionally into a Court Room. He “held (me) to answer” his surprise yet to be “adduced” specifics, charges and Judgment. Due Process of Law has a comprehensive procedure and substantive provisions for the protection of rights. When Commissioner Jones stepped outside those provisions, over timely and repeated objections, allowing testimony “outside the scope of the pleadings[14]” it amounted to “unfair surprise[15].” It was willful, criminal and a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process[16] and “coram non judice”[17] it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[18]. (07-11115)
- Because of Commissioner Jones’s inferior status, the superior court, the 21st District Court en banc,[19] as his employer and supervisor had culpability for his illegal and unconstitutional act.
- Judge Colyer denied my valid pretrial motions for dismissal based on the gross incompetents of the arresting officers; it was a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”;[20] it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[21]. (08-1823)
- The Prosecuting Attorneys with the acquiescence of Judge Colyer denied me exculpable material[22] that would have further supported my assertion of the gross incompetents of the arresting officers; it was a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”;[23] it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[24]. (08-1823)
- The arresting officer Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, in February of 2004 at trial, lied on the stand perjuring himself by contradicting verifiable police procedure. Officer Little had clearly been made aware of the issue by his intimate knowledge of the pretrial motions for the trial, he was in the courtroom to testify at the hearing on my motion in the Fall of 2003, months before his testimony at my trial in February 2004. Additionally he had testified that he had been to the certified training. Incompetence[25] or perjury[26], it does not make any difference in a civil rights case. (08-1823)
- The second arresting officer Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, in February of 2004 at trial, not only testified to his incompetence, but further perjured himself on the stand under oath contradicting his prior sworn police report. Incompetence[27] or perjury[28], it does not make any difference in a civil rights case. (08-1823)
- Judge Colyer and others acting in a conspiracy after the false and illegal conviction and with the full knowledge of all the above issues in a POST TRIAL MOTION, i.e. false arrest, malicious prosecution, false testimony, denial of exculpable material, denied my POST TRIAL MOTION for a miss trial and forced me into an appeal that I was unable to mount for reasons other than the evidence above. I had a life outside of the courtroom; I was going through a contested divorce and had been illegally and unconstitutionally forced from my home and my
- I wrote letters for three years to Everyone I could think of to find a remedy for the criminal denial of my rights, The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges, The Missouri State Highway Patrol, The Governor of Missouri (Matt Blunt), The Missouri State Supreme Court, Local Newspapers, The State of Missouri Attorney General (now governor Jay Nixon) and numerous attorneys. No one would assist me. It was a denial of the protection of laws[30].
- Because of the combined issues of the Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and the appeal 08-1823 and because I am a human and not a superhuman I was unable to mount a perfected[31] appeal in state Court on any of these issues, while working 60 hours a week, managing 145 men, on two shifts, 6 days a week on a construction project building at the rate of $5,000,000/month, this, thus became a Civil Rights Issue in FEDERAL COURT, a violation of The First Amendment, Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights,
- I filed in the US Court Eastern District of Missouri as 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al & US Court Western District of Missouri as 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al and was denied on both issues, in federal court. I was denied fall 2007 and spring 2008 respectively. It was a denial of the protection of laws[32].
- I filed appeals; I was denied on both issues in the 8th Circuit United States Court of Appeals, 07-2614 & 08-1823. I was denied spring and summer of 2008. It was a denial of the protection of laws[33].
- I filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court on 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614) as Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. I was denied at the Supreme Court “Oct 6 2008 Petition DENIED.” It was a denial of the protection of laws[34].
- I filed a motion to combine the two issues for a rehearing 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614) & 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823) on Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. I was denied, “Jan 21 2009 Rehearing DENIED.” It was a denial of the protection of laws[35].
- I started utilizing my free speech right asking what is a person to do when the Supreme Court denies your rights, “Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building“” footnoted as “A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.”
- I wrote a letter on
- I was arrested
- I made no threats I stated the
- For 411 days in Federal Custody I was regularly humiliated, intimidated with regular strip searches and denial of liberty. I was DENIED my liberty, my freedom of speech, paper clips, ink pens, computer access and what little access I had to my Son for 411 days.
- Now I admit that throughout this entire action, nearly 7 years, I have been a convicted drunk and a court proclaimed abuser albeit a wrongful conviction and a corrupt proclamation. I was and am a member of a very unpopular minority if not an infinitely small unpopular minority, an infamous individual. I believed that “the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will… at the very least.[39]” I need my Bill of Rights to regain my unconstitutionally stolen Good Name.
- How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute immunity”[40] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[41] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the
We the People have fallen under the despotic[43] spell of the concentrated power[44] in the Supreme Court that created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[45] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [46] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[47] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[48]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [49] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
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,[50] 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!!!!!
“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. [56] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[59] 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,[60]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[61] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[62] 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"[63]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[64] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,”[65] “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),[66] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [67] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[68] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[69] The fact that “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners”[70] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, March 30, 2012, 6:46:48 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.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 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] Amendment IV US Constitution
[7] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . Incompetence is unreasonable via “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 - “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” per Owen v City of Independence (455 U.S. 622 (1980)
[8] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . If the police are allowed to lie no one can feel safe, Perjury establishes “Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496
[9] Amendment IV US Constitution
[10] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
[11] Amendment IV US Constitution
[12] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
[13] Amendment XIV US Constitution
[14] See trial transcript and the repeated motions on pages 31-41 of Case 07-2614 dated 5/16/08 entry ID:3435399
[15] See trial transcript and the repeated motions on pages 31-41 of Case 07-2614 dated 5/16/08 entry ID:3435399
[16] Amendment XIV US Constitution
[17] Coram non judice, Latin for "not in the presence of a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding without a judge, with improper venue, or without jurisdiction.
[18] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
[19] EN BANC - Fr. "by the full court" "in the bench" or "full bench." When all the members of an appellate court hear an argument, they are sitting en banc. Refers to court sessions with the entire membership of a court participating rather than the usual quorum. U.S. courts of appeals usually sit in panels of three judges, but may expand to a larger number in certain cases. They are then said to be sitting en banc.
[20] Amendment XIV US Constitution
[21] The Fourteenth Amendment asserts Due Process of Law as a requisite for any and all deprivations. This motion was without a valid reason for denial
[22] Jean v. Collins 221 F.3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 200) cert. denied 531 U.S. 1076 121 S.Ct. 771, 148 L.ed.2d 671 (2001), "Due Process, Right to Exculpatory, Brady Material" (FN 17, 25, 26 & Pages 19, 26, 27)
[23] Amendment XIV US Constitution
[24] The Fourteenth Amendment asserts Due Process of Law as a requisite for any and all deprivations. This motion was without a valid reason for denial
[25] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . Incompetence is unreasonable via “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 - “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” per Owen v City of Independence (455 U.S. 622 (1980) (FN 20 & Pages 21)
[26] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . If the police are allowed to lie no one can feel safe, Perjury establishes “Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496
[27] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . Incompetence is unreasonable via “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 - “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” per Owen v City of Independence (455 U.S. 622 (1980) (FN 20 & Pages 21)
[28] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . If the police are allowed to lie no one can feel safe, Perjury establishes “Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496
[29] Amendment XIV US Constitution
[31] I did not at that time understand Legal Jurisdiction. I was told needed to provide a jurisdictional statement in addition to reams of evidence. As it turns out in both 08-1823 and 07-11115 there was NO jurisdiction. Without credible Probable Cause the courts have no Jurisdiction.
[36] I quote from FBI Mission Statement “The FBI is the lead agency for investigating violations of federal civil rights laws…and we take that responsibility seriously.” The FBI speaks specifically to these issues as they define their mission as it relates to civil rights “under color of law”. I again quote “U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. (bolding added) “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”
[37] I was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2 provides:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States , is punishable as a principal.
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) provides:
Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
[38] United States of America , Appellee, v. Russell Kelner, Appellant , United States Oct. 29, 1975 .Decided April 9, 1976 “The purpose and effect of the Watts constitutionally-limited definition of the term "threat" is to insure that only unequivocal, unconditional and specific expressions of intention immediately to inflict injury may be punished only such threats, in short, as are of the same nature as those threats which are, as Judge Wright recognizes, "properly punished every day under statutes prohibiting extortion, blackmail and assault without consideration of First Amendment issues." WATTS V. UNITED STATES, 394 U. S. 705 (1969), supra. The Watts requirement of proof of a "true threat," it may be seen, works ultimately to much the same purpose and effect as would a requirement of proof of specific intent to execute the threat because both requirements focus on threats which are so unambiguous and have such immediacy that they convincingly express an intention of being carried out.”
[40] “In short, the common law provided 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. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[41] 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] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[43] 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
[44] "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
[45] 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.
[48] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[49] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[50] 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.
[51] 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.
[52] “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
[53] 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.”
[59] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[60] 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
[61] 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[62] 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.
[63] “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
[65] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts
[69] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[70] “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
