Catherine D. Perry, Chief United States District Judge (Suite 14.182)
c/o Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: The REQUIRED[1] Judicial Inquiry based on 4:12-cv-00703-CEJ
Charles Sumner (1811 – 1874) and Ida B. Wells (1862 – 1931)
Dear Ms. Perry,
There is a thing called Justice.[2] The intent of our founding fathers was to "establish Justice." The grant of absolute immunity,[3] as defined by Supreme Court precedent,[4] indisputably stands in opposition to Justice. In our justice system there has to be a check on absolute immunity, no one has a divine[5] right, nothing based on a human being has ever achieved the sublimity that forms the requisite basis, the envisioned perfection, of absolute immunity requires.
The definition of Justice has always been allusive, but when you see it you know it. I doubt anyone would dispute Charles Sumner[6] and Ida B. Wells[7] never got justice in the court of law for their issues, this in spite of the law of the land that purported justice both constitutionally[8] and statutorily.[9] Sumner and Wells got judicial sophistry[10] in place of We the People's EXPRESSED intent to establish justice with both constitutional and statute law.
The only reference to justice constitutionally is in the preamble's intent to "establish Justice." No further definition, constitutionally, is even attempted regarding that intent. "Article. III." of our constitution is all about judicial power. Judicial power as commonly understood is the "the administration of justice."
Nonetheless I assert that equitableness is an essential element of any definition of Justice. The United States of America was founded on the premise:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[11]
Yet over hundred years after our declaration neither justice nor equality were secured rights. Neither Sumner nor Wells could establish justice or equality in our courts under We the People's[12] law. All they could get was the sophistry[13] of the judiciary to subserve personal malice.
How are We the People suppose to overcome Absolute Immunity as utilized before out of court,[14] as if they were Nobility,[15] by our Justice system. We the People have fallen under the despotic[16] spell of the concentrated power[17] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[18] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [19] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[20] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[21]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [22] "false and malicious Persecutions"[23] acting under color of law to wit,
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
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
enclosure
a. "The flaw in American Justice - Strict Scrutiny Without Strict Liability Is just Sophistry"
The flaw in American Justice
Strict Scrutiny
Without Strict Liability
Is just Sophistry
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
Thursday, April 26, 2012, 3:06:52 PM Originally published Saturday, May 28, 2011, 4:29:47 PM
Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.[27] "
Strict Scrutiny without STRICT LIABILITY is
The FLAW in American Justice.
Strict Scrutiny arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause.
Strict Liability – Liability that does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm, but that is based on an absolute duty to make something safe.[28] Strict Liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability. Strict Liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law.
Strict Scrutiny is supposed to assure us Rights. But after Strict Scrutiny as established by Supreme Court Precedent there is no Strict Liability for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[29] Why did we establish "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[30] if no one was to be held liable for them. Why do we worry? Supreme Court Precedent has awarded "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 (emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
Now if you are a criminal, the Government is held to Strict Liability via The Exclusionary Rule. The Government is strictly forbidden from using any evidence acquired via the denial of a person's Constitutional Rights. But if you are innocent[31] The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant and Strict Scrutiny becomes irrelevant SOPHISTRY, no one has any Strict Liability for an innocent person's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[32] The Government can destroy your life and there is no 7th Amendment[33] protection for RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone[34] has "Absolute Immunity"[35] but the innocent victim for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[36]
"We the People" have written a constitution to secure rights, "The Bill of Rights." "We the People" have passed statute law to secure rights Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985. "We the People" have signed Treaties that require ourselves and others to secure rights, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"[37] PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a.), (b.) and (c.) (as adopted by the United Nations[38] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977).
But "We the People" have no SECURITY for RIGHTS. Our Government has no STRICT LIABILITY for our Rights. Our government, in the person of the President, The Judiciary, and "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" can randomly at-will deprive us of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[39] and there is not a DAM thing we as individual persons can do about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The doctrine that, except where Congress has provided, the United States cannot be sued" is unlawful and UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on common law, The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the First Amendment,[40] the Seventh Amendment, [41] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), United States v. Lee[42], 106 U.S. 196 (1882) and Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932).
The right to petition is the right to sue[43] and per the first Amendment "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;" therefore Congress has no say on the issue.
We the People of the United States of America incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to establish and maintain each others inalienable and inviolable rights asserted and secured by our Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), our Constitution (June 21, 1788) and our Bill of Rights (December 15, 1791). We the People thus have secured incorporated liability for each others "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[44] Was not the establishment, enforcement and maintenance of Rights the raison d'être for our revolution in 1776, our constitution in 1788 and our Bill of Rights in 1791?
The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61) gave voice to the first right of petition, the First Amendment merely established it in the Constitution for the United States of America:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This was confirmed in the stare decisis of the Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases," he says,
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."" (Page 5 U. S. 163)
The right to petition as legally understood, defined and confirmed in 1803 by chief justice John Marshal in the seminal Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) as English common law was in its essence the authority to sue the King i.e., the sovereign or the government in court, "and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court" - whether he likes it or not. Therefore the non-existent King, the sovereign or the government never had a claim to immunity based on the American interpretation of English common law and the constitution of the United States of America as the stare decisis of chief justice John Marshal in the seminal Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) CONFIRMS. Any assertion of Kingly, sovereign, judicial, or governmental immunity, subsequent to the 1803 stare decisis of chief justice John Marshal in the seminal Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) on the common law of England and the constitutional First Amendment's congressionally un-abridge-able right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," for the deprivation of "a legal right" was and is indefensible!
As regards the Supreme Courts current assertion of blanket Absolute Immunity[45] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[46] based on common law, its basis is NON-existent. Per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone,[47] I quote again Chief Justice John Marshal Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803):
"In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases," he says,
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.""
Therefore there is no COMMON LAW IMMUNITY as regards the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[48] Point in FACT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) makes Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 redundantly reassuring but un-necessary. There is and has been since 1803 a "suit or action at law whenever that (legal) right is invaded."
United States v. Lee[49], 106 U.S. 196 (1882) confirmed this in a theoretical if not specific argument. The issue in United States v. Lee revolved around the government taking of and individual's property without Due Process or just compensation as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment RIGHT:
"That no person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
In Lee the Supreme Court said
"Undoubtedly those provisions of the Constitution are of that character which it is intended the courts shall enforce when cases involving their operation and effect are brought before them. The instances in which the life and liberty of the citizen have been protected by the judicial writ of habeas corpus are too familiar to need citation, and many of these cases -- indeed almost all of them -- are those in which life or liberty was invaded by persons (It is critical to note that "persons" here clearly includes Judges. The "judicial writ of habeas corpus" is most often if not almost exclusively used in response to a JUDGE's governmental authority in the preceding Judicial action to wit, Judges make mistakes that require Judicial CORRECTIVE action) assuming to act under the authority of the government. Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2."
If this constitutional provision is a sufficient authority for the court to interfere to rescue a prisoner from the hands of those holding him under the asserted authority of the government (i.e., Judges), what reason is there that the same courts shall not give remedy to the citizen whose property has been seized without due process of law and devoted to public use without just compensation?
"Looking at the question (immunity from suit) upon principle and apart from the authority of adjudged cases, we think it still clearer that this branch of the defense cannot be maintained. It seems to be opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, must be determined. In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen… for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime. The position assumed here is that however clear his rights, no remedy can be afforded to him when it is seen that his opponent is an officer of the United States claiming to act under its authority, for, as Chief Justice Marshall says, to examine whether this authority is rightfully assumed is the exercise of jurisdiction, and must lead to the decision of the merits of the question. The objection of the plaintiffs in error necessarily forbids any inquiry into the truth of the assumption that the parties setting up such authority are lawfully possessed of it, for the argument is that the formal suggestion of the existence of such authority forbids any inquiry into the truth of the suggestion.
But why should not the truth of the suggestion and the lawfulness of the authority be made the subject of judicial investigation?" (Page 106 U. S. 218)
There is no reason in common law or constitutional law, acknowledging Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803), why compensation and judicial investigation should not as confirmed in Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932):
"If this extreme position (immunity from suit) could be deemed to be well taken, it is manifest that the fiat of a state governor (or a judge), and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases, the futility of which the state may at any time disclose by the simple process of transferring powers of legislation to the Governor to be exercised by him, beyond control, upon his assertion of necessity. Under our system of government, such a conclusion is obviously untenable. There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 223 U. S. 591; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 225 U. S. 261; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 236 U. S. 593; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 248 U. S. 67, 248 U. S. 69; Merchants' National Bank v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 256 U. S. 638; First National Bank v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 273 U. S. 552-553; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 274 U. S. 385-386." (Page 287 U. S. 397)
be available and offered to the victim of the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[50]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[51] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[52] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[53] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[54]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[55] spell of the concentrated power[56] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[57] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [58] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[59] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[60]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [61] 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,[62] 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[63] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[64] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[65] "before out of Court"[66] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[67]
"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. [68] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[69].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[72] 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,[73]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[74] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[75] 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"[76]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[77] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[78] "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),[79] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [80] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[81] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[82] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[83] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday, April 26, 2012, 3:06:52 PM, 2012 04-25-12 Strict Scrutiny WITHOUT STRICT LIABILITY is just Sophistry.doc
[1] "When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right." Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 223 U. S. 591; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 225 U. S. 261; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 236 U. S. 593; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 248 U. S. 67, 248 U. S. 69; Merchants' National Bank v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 256 U. S. 638; First National Bank v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 273 U. S. 552-553; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 274 U. S. 385-386. (Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 398)
[2] Justice without regard to equity consideration impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.
[3] "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
[4] "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton
[5] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[5] 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."
[6] Sumner represented the plaintiffs in Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850), a case which challenged the legality of segregation. Arguing before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, Sumner noted that schools for blacks were physically inferior and that segregation bred harmful psychological and sociological effects—arguments that would be made in Brown v. Board of Education over a century later.
Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850), was a lawsuit seeking to end racial discrimination in Boston public schools. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Boston, finding no constitutional basis for the suit. The case was later cited by the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the "separate but equal" standard.
In 1954, Case of Brown v. Board of Board of Education: ruled against "separate but equal" citing the same arguments of Charles Sumner.
[7] On May 4, 1884, a train conductor Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad ordered 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. When she sued the railroad. She won her case on December 24, 1884, when the local circuit court granted her a $500 settlement. The railroad company appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which 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." Wells was ordered to pay court costs. Justice without regard to equity consideration impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.
[8] The Declaration of Independence, "We the People of the United States… establish Justice.. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[9] There is no coincidence in the relative dates of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) criminal judicial immunity, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871),when added to criminal i.e., criminal and civil judicial absolute immunity. The Anti-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1876).
[10] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." Thomas Jefferson To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[11] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
[12] ANTI-Segregationist the Civil Rights Act (1876)
[13] "the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." Thomas Jefferson To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[14] 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."
[15] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[15] 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] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[17] "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
[18] 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.
[19] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[20] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[21] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!
[22] 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] "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.
[25] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[26] 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 (underlining and emphasis added for clarity)
[27] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[28] If rights do not establish do not establish "an absolute duty to make something safe" what in the world does?
"It is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."[28] "It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." [28] Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone (underlining and emphasis added for clarity)
[31] "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410
[33] 7TH Amendment - 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.
[34] In direct conflict with statute law Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
"Every person" and Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
"Whoever" (underlining and emphasis added for clarity)
[35] "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
[37] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[38] "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
[40] 1st Amendment, a lawfully un-abridge-able right to a justifiable "redress of grievances" i.e., "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[41] 7th Amendment "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."
[42] Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee (October 1, 1808 – November 5, 1873) was the wife of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Mary Anna Custis Lee was the only surviving child of George Washington Parke Custis, George Washington's step-grandson and adopted son and founder of Arlington House. She was a great grand-daughter of Martha Washington. Robert E. Lee was the step-great grandson-in-law of George Washington. The land for Arlington Commentary had been bequeathed to Robert E. Lee's wife from her father the step grandson of George Washington.
[43] Chief Justice John Marshal in 1803 "In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Page 5 U. S. 163
[45] The "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. 335 (1983))
[47] The Commentaries on the Laws of England are an influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. The work is divided into four volumes, on the rights of persons, the rights of things, of private wrongs and of public wrongs.
[49] Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee (October 1, 1808 – November 5, 1873) was the wife of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Mary Anna Custis Lee was the only surviving child of George Washington Parke Custis, George Washington's step-grandson and adopted son and founder of Arlington House. She was a great grand-daughter of Martha Washington. Robert E. Lee was the step-great grandson-in-law of George Washington. The land for Arlington Commentary had been bequeathed to Robert E. Lee's wife from her father the step grandson of George Washington.
[50] 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.
[51] "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
[52] 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"
[53] 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.
[54] 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.
[55] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[56] "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
[57] 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.
[58] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[59] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[60] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!
[61] "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
[62] 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.
[63] 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.
[64] "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
[65] 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."
[69] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[70] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"
[72] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[73] 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
[74] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[75] 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.
[76] "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
[78] See, e.g., Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 475-476 (1866) (exchange between Sen. Trumbull, the Senate sponsor of the bill, and Sen. Cowan); id. at 1155 (exchange between Rep. Thayer and Rep. Eldridge); id. at 1267 (Rep. Raymond) "[I]f a judge or sheriff or any other officer of a State court should take part in enforcing any State law making distinctions among the citizens of the State on account of race or color, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished with fine and imprisonment under this bill," id. at 500 Sen. Cowan in opposition noting that "the judge, the constable, the sheriff, the marshal, and everybody" was liable under § 2; id. at 598, Sen. Davis in opposition "All the parties" who participate in the unjust conviction of a Negro would be liable, including "the grand jury, the petit jury, the judge, and the officer of the law" who executes the judgment." (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 358 (1983)) 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.
[82] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[83] "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
