US First Class Mail March 26, 2012
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street
N.E.
Washington,
DC 20543-0001
Re: The FEAR MONGERS
Dear Justices,
Awhile back I came across what I believe
to be a very apropos quote from Edward R. Murrow regarding McCarthyism's fear
mongering:
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason
if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful
men."
The FEAR MONGERS that want to sell their self serving POWER
assert that We the People’s Justice System, the prosecutors, the police and
“the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence,
and without fear of consequences.”[1] And to deny them their absolute immunity
would result in unavoidable “vexatious”[2]
or calumnious[3]
actions.
“With independence, and without fear of
consequences” in Supreme Court speak means without regard to the “deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of
America.” [4]
Barry Scheck, co-founder of the
Innocence Project, made a very good point in a recent 60 Minutes piece “Evidence of Innocence: The
case of Michael Morton” in Texas;
it is not a wave of prosecutorial, police or judicial corruption. It is the YEARS of absolute unaccountability
of the justice system’s judiciary, prosecutors, and police. In fact I would be willing to bet that the
corruption within our Justice System statistically does not vary from the
population at large. There are for the
sake of argument 1/X criminals in the general population, there are I would
assert exactly the same, 1/X criminals, in our justice system. The only issue is in the general population
they are held accountable. In our
Justice system they have virtual “absolute
immunity” from personal and professional liability and “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). There victims are
left with NOTHING because they impoverish their victims with their evil.
How are Mr. Morton, Mr.
Thompson (No. 09–571), Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98) Ms.
Millender (No. 10–704) and myself
(USCA8 No. 11-8211)[5] myself or the other statistically undeniable victims suppose
to overcome “absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability?” The struggle has deprived me of EVERYTHING; I
am absolutely destitute, living on the street for going on 5 years. I lost all but the love of my son, I lost my
home, my career, my retirement and have been forced me into horrible homeless
street person poverty for going on FIVE YEARS!!!! This is crazy, our justice system has forgotten
its purpose, “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, or until
liberty be lost in the pursuit.”[6]
It is irrefutable “absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability” impoverishes the victim at the
expense of the evil they have suffered.
Evil always wins in such a case at the expense of the innocent. To tolerate even the slightest evil in the
name of Justice is self defeating. There
is no benefit from the supposed expediency of “absolute immunity” when you have to
quite literally sacrifice your soul for it.
The Justice system will lose what little respect it currently has if the
Supreme Court continues to enforce “absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability” at the untold expense of
innocent victims.
“How can the
Supreme Court, a delegated
authority, acting under a constitutional
commission award themselves and others “absolute immunity” [8] from said constitutional commission to “do
not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[9]
i.e., the “deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,”[10] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of
governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice,
law and equity?[11]”
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
FEAR MONGERS In We the People’s Justice System And on The Supreme Court” Tuesday, March 26, 2012
cc: My Blog - Monday, April 1, 2012
[1] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223
(1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher (1871), supra, 80 U. S. 349,
note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554
(1967)
[2] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) “prevent
them (our judges and justice
system) being harassed by vexatious actions,” in all cases it is the judiciary’s
responsibility to avoid “vexatious” or calumnious actions to the best
of their ability not concede to their inevitability. “Vexatious” or calumnious actions are hazards
in any human endeavor,
[3] Floyd and Barker (1607) “And those
who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations,” in all cases it is the judiciary’s
responsibility to avoid “vexatious” or calumnious actions to the best
of their ability not concede to their inevitability. “Vexatious” or calumnious actions are hazards
in any human endeavor,
“In
addressing the consequences of subjecting judges (and/or “all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)) to suits for
damages under § 1983, the Court has commented:
"Imposing
such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless
decision making but to intimidation."
Pierson
v. Ray, 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 554. (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976) [Footnote 26]).”
[5] See also USCA8
#07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
#07-11115
[6] 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
[7] No. 11-8211, Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner
v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. Docketed: January
10, 2012, Lower Ct: United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Case Nos.:(11-2425) DISTRIBUTED
for Conference of April 13, 2012.
[8] “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
[9] 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”
[11] 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.
