"Let them eat cake"
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
Sunday, April 08, 2012, 10:25:58 AM, originally published 08-14-11
With the recent illogical questioning of the Haters on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)[4] in the Supreme Court, I have to say it is EASY to be a Hater. Haters do not have to provide real solutions. A Hater can say "Let them Eat Cake." It is much, much, MUCH harder to actually GOVERN. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not perfect, nothing humanly attempted ever can be.[5]
Given the state of things, an undeniable need to contain the all consuming cost of healthcare and at the same time broaden the distribution of well care both to help those that can and cannot currently afford it, to actually extend lives. It has to be admitted that our current system frivolously over invests in end of life care while not funding/investing in well care that could actually extend lives.
Healthcare does not fit the free-market model as described by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations." Supply will NEVER satiate the demand. People are GOING to die no matter how much you frivolously invest in the end of life care. Now if we adjust our current funding parameters to INVEST in well care instead of end of life care, we can actually significantly extend lives.
How do you do this? Do you set up a government funded single payer system like Canada and most of Europe, thus eliminating the Health Care insurance INDUSTRY with a single pen stroke, to me not really consistent with a free-market approach, OR do you set up a Health Care Insurance market that ALL persons are required via a personal mandate to participate in to keep the Health Care insurance INDUSTRY alive. It should be noted that this is much like the system in Japan where the life expectancy is 82.6 years, first among developed countries and the United States is currently 78.3 years, and 36th among developed countries.
Now if you are a Hater on the Supreme Court you assert your sophistry as first confirmed by Thomas Jefferson when he said of Judges "the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice."[6] This insertion of ambiguity is in direct conflict with the clear intent to establish the Rule of Law of We the People of "ordinary intelligence."[7]
The Blessings of Liberty defies a definitive limit. We the People surrender nothing especially as it pertains to the X Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court of the United States of America is supposedly responsible for the defending liberties more open ended nature. But the current Supreme Court FIVE,[8] the Haters on the Supreme Court, are intent, for purely personal reasons, to limit LIBERTY. The constitution does not explicitly deny a personal mandate, point in fact the Constitution of the United States provides for the Congressional power of the federal government "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper"[9] "To regulate Commerce among the several States."[10]
With the Constitution for the United States of America, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to SECURE each other's inalienable rights. At least that is what We the People thought[11] we did.
We the People only think We have "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." Everybody but the innocent victim has immunity for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." The innocent victim of the deprivation of rights is left for dead on the side of the road.
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" 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). "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty" Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976). "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983).
Now the Supreme Court loves to assert "truthfinding safeguards" and "the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies."[12] With nearly 8 years of committed effort, I dispute those assertions. Now if the victim could just get the issue in court that might be possible. BUT the ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity" [13] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[14] "before out of Court"[15] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [16] You can not even get the issue into court. And if you could summon the uberempathetic[17] requirements of impeachment or criminal prosecution, the victim still is left without redress of grievances. The innocent victim is, again, left on the side of the road for dead.
I mean why did We the People even go to the effort to write a constitution, a Bill of Rights if it was assumed that the Judges would NOT be bound by the Supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights.
There has to be liability, there has to accountability, there has to be "reckonabilty;"[18] immunity invalidates all. The Supreme Court has forgotten its PRIMARY task, to establish Justice. As an innocent victim on the side of the road clinging to life by a thread all I hear is the Supreme Court and it sounds like Marie Antoinette asserting,
"Let them Eat Cake"
But there is no cake, there is no justice as there was NO BREAD; there are NO "truthfinding safeguards"[19] and the law has NOT "provided for private parties numerous remedies."[20] EVERYBODY, but the innocent victim, has immunity to act with impunity.
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[21] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[22] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[23] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[24]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[25] spell of the concentrated power[26] in the Supreme Court that created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[27] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [28] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[29] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[30]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [31] 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,[32] 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[33] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[34] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[35] "before out of Court"[36] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[37]
"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. [38] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[39].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[40]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[41] 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,[42]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[43] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[44] 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"[45]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[46] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[47] "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),[48] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [49] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[50] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[51] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[52] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Sunday, April 08, 2012, 10:25:58 AM, 2012 04-07-12 Let them Eat Cake REV 00.doc
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228
[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[4] 124 Stat. 119 through 124 Stat. 1025 (906 pages)
[5] Our Supreme Court has an issue dealing with its own humanity. They see themselves as absolutely immune from ALL responsibility.
[6] Thomas Jefferson To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[7] 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. (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[9] Article. I., Section. 8., Paragraph 18
[10] Article. I., Section. 8., Paragraph 3
[11] "Predictability or as Llewellynn puts it, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, "The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule" The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[12] "Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 354 (1871)
[13] "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
[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."
[17] "Equality in the War on Terror" Neal K. Katyal, Grorgetown University Law Center,
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/409 59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365-1394 (2007)
[18] Immunity of any kind denies the "Predictability or as Llewellynn puts it, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, "The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule" The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[20] "Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 354 (1871)
[21] "In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[22] 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"
[23] 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.
[24] 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.
[25] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[26] "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
[27] 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.
[28] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[29] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[30] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[31] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[32] 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.
[33] 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.
[34] "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
[35] 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."
[38] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[39] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[41] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[42] 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
[43] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[44] 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.
[45] "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
[47] 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.
[51] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[52] "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
