ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER
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 16, 2012, 10:13:25 AM
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."[5] Supreme Court sophistry, stare decisis, unequivocally proves this:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[6] ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[7] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [8] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[9] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[10]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [11] acting under color of law to the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[12] of WE THE PEOPLE. We the People have no redress of grievances[13] as if they were NOBILITY.[14]
"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"[15]) with independence, and without fear of consequences." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 350 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
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"[16]
into ABSOLUTE POWER!
We the People have fallen under the despotic[17] spell of the concentrated power[18] in the CORRUPT Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[19] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [20] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[21] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[22]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [23] 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[24]), the first modern attempt at limiting government. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER[25]!!!!!!
"This immunity applies even when the judge (or anyone integral to the Judicial Process) is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[26] "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."[27] "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."[28] In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [29]
"Absolute immunity" is a denial of the constitutional guarantee of Due Process of Law,[30] "extrajudicial"[31] an "unlawful Conspiracy" [32] "before out of Court"[33]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I sometimes feel like the waif in the Danish parable "The Emperor's New Cloths."[34]
Am I the only one that can see it?
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY has corruptted our Justice system. 100 years of Jim Crow can be directly linked to the not coincidental timing of the two initiating Supreme Court precedents,[35] Randall (1868) and Bradley (1871), and the passage of § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act[36] that clearly made "whoever" i.e., Judges, statutorily criminally liable for the deprivation of rights and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[37] 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 – constitutional legislative intent § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make "whoever" i.e., Judges, criminally liable and Bradley (1871) gave the Judiciary ABSOLUTE[38] POWER[39] and ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from criminal and civil prosecution for the deprivation of rights without any reference to the clear - not even a year old - constitutional 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 "equal protection of the law" can be sophisticatedly into separate and VERY UNEQUAL, where we NOW incarcerate 5 times[40] 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,[41] 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."[42]
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."[43]
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" [44] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[45] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[46]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[48] spell of the concentrated power[49] in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[50] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [51] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[52] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[53]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [54] 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[55]), 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."[56] Why did We the People write a constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[57] 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"[58] with the First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able[59] 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[60])?
Now King George III of England ignored the colonist repeated petitions prior to the Declaration of Independence[61] 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[62] for redress of their grievances and they sent him the Declaration of Independence.
Our Supreme Court and their stare decisis is just as ignorant and CORRUPT as King George III. I have sent NUMEROUS petitions[63] 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."[64] 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"[65] 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
The REVISED QUESTION:
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity" [66] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[67] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[68] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[69]
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,[70] 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[71] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[72] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[73] "before out of Court"[74] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[75]
"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. [76] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[77].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[78]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[79] 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,[80]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[81] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[82] 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"[83]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[84] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[85] "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),[86] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [87] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[88] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[89] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[90] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, March 16, 2012, 10:13:25 AM, 2012 02-13-12 ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY REV 01
[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
[7] 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.
[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[13] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[14] 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."
[16] Article 3. Section 2, The Constitution for the United States of America
[17] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[18] "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
[19] 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.
[20] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[21] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[22] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[23] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[24] "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."
[25] "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
[26] 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
[27] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[28] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[29] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all persons
[30] 5th and 14th Amendments
[31] 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."
[34] ""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
[35] 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."
[36] now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
[38] "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
[39] 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!!!!
[40] "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
[41] U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008
[42] FEDERALIST No. 78 "The Judiciary Department" From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 Alexander Hamilton
[43] The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. Section. 1. "The judicial Power of the United States shall"
[44] "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
[45] 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"
[47] "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
[48] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[49] "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
[50] 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.
[51] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[52] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[53] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[54] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[55] "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."
[57] 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."
[59] 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"
[60] "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."
[61] "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
[62] 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."
[64] 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
[65] 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.
[66] "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
[67] 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"
[69] 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.
[70] 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.
[71] 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.
[72] "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
[73] 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."
[77] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[79] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[80] 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
[81] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[82] 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.
[83] "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
[85] 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.
[89] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[90] "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
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
