Saturday, March 3, 2012

Judges are not allowed to indulge “cases of imaginary evils”[1] vexatious[2] and calumnious[3] actions

Judges are not allowed to indulge
"cases of imaginary evils"[1] vexatious[2] and calumnious[3] actions
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"
 "A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[4] is ever truly safe."[5]
Saturday, March 03, 2012, 11:13:44 AM

Judges are not allowed to indulge "cases of imaginary evils"[7] vexatious[8] and calumnious[9] actions.  A constitutionally commissioned judge's first and most important task is to be a judge and judicially avoid "imaginary evils,"[10] vexatious[11] and calumnious[12] actions for We the People openly and publicly, if not before out of court,[13] then most definitely and necessarily in court.  NO MATTER what the Supreme Court says no one has immunity from the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.[14]  Credible probable cause[15] is an ESSENTIAL prerequisite to any GOVERNMENT action "imaginary evils,"[16] vexatious[17] and calumnious[18] actions do not qualifyConstitutionally commissioned judges, prosecutors and police are not allowed to persecute "cases of imaginary evils"[19] vexatious[20] and calumnious[21] actions (Messerschmidt v. Millender (No. 10–704, Decided February 22, 2012), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011) and Jeep v. Obama (No. 11-8211 Petition DENIED February 21, 2012)).  ""Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "it's just words on paper, what our framers would have called a 'parchment guarantee'""[22] unless and until We the People of "ordinary intelligence"[23] demand our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[24] with our constitutionally assured by the 1st and 7th Amendment remedies[25] provided for by the Constitution for the United States of America, We the People will FOREVER be subject to "cases of imaginary evils"[26] vexatious[27] and calumnious[28] actions.
      We the People have RIGHTS in this country.  Our constitutionally commissioned representatives, judges, prosecutors and police, are restricted to the unbiased definitively established FACTS as to probable cause and guilt!!!!!  For any society to successfully function there has to be mutual TRUST.  Now in homogenous societies, it is easier, there is less crime.  In America we have never had that luxury.  In America, in too many cases we have not learned the MOST fundamental requirement of any civilization, TRUST.  We are all too willing to give into "cases of imaginary evils,"[29] vexatious[30] and calumnious[31] actions, the product of a fruitful imagination.  Imaginary evils soon become a real one by indulging our reflections on them.  Our constitutionally commissioned judiciary has capitulated to the FEAR MONGERS and forgotten its PURPOSE is to be JUDICIAL, without the fear or the emotional bias of "imaginary evils,"[32] vexatious[33] and calumnious[34] actions the product of fruitful imagination.

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (
Saturday, March 03, 2012, 11:13:44 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
(314) 514-5228

[2] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[4] "And if you think that is a national problem, indulge 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.
[5] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[6] 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
[8] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[11] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[13] "but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do;"  Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607)
[14] The 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"
[15] Amendment 4 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[17] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[20] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[22] "'We the People' Loses Appeal With People Around the World" NYTimes By ADAM LIPTAK Published: February 6, 2012
[23] 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 cause) 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)
[24] 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
[25] 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.
[27] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[30] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[33] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349

Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred,
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316