What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Bad Behaviour!
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
Monday, April 30, 2012, 4:00:53 PM
Alexander Hamilton, co-author of the Federalist Papers, founder of the National Bank, the leader of the Federalist Party, and original signer to the Constitution for the United States of America, said it first and best in May of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, FEDERALIST No. 78, "The Judiciary Department" From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788:
"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… 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."[4]
The Constitution's "Grounds for impeachment" of a Supreme Court Justice's are and I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America, Article III., Section. 1., "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 81 , "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788:
"And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body 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."[5]
There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility to wit, "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." Again, Alexander Hamilton FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people." [6]
How can a minister, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn[7] to constitutional commission even ask for immunity from said constitution they have sworn to protect and defend?
Criminal Behavior is clearly Bad Behaviour!!!! I quote from CRIMINAL Federal Statute:
per
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping[8] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,[9] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." (emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
Clearly to any sane person John Thompson's 7th amendment Due Process rights were denied most recently by the Supreme Court FIVE[10] in the ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 where "The Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office" had attempted to MURDER Mr. Thompson. The Supreme Court FIVE[11] incriminated themselves by acknowledging the deprivation of Thompson's rights in the facts of the case from 1985. I quote page one word one of the majority opinion:
"JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office now con-cedes that, in prosecuting respondent John Thompson for attempted armed robbery, prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that should have been turned over to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)."
The Supreme Court FIVE[12] then went on to deprive Mr. Thompson of his ALREADY established 7th Amendment[13] CONSTITUTIONAL jury awarded equity for his 1st Amendment rights for redress of grievances for the self-acknowledged bad acts by Connick, District Attorney, et al i.e., "The Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office."
The Supreme Court FIVE[14] confirmed and assumed criminal liability for Connick, District Attorney, et al's. bad acts, they then added additional criminal liability of their own criminal actions by denying Thompson's 7th Amendment suit in equity rights ALREADY established by a proper proceeding for redress in the lower court.
Clearly to any sane person the Supreme Court FIVE's actions were both criminal Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 & 242 and unconstitutional a denial of Due Process (5th and 14th Amendments) and the 7th Amendment equity right to due process jury trial award for the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able constitutional RIGHT to a redress of grievances from the government.
If we ever want our RIGHTS as declared by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America to be respected by those acting under color of law, we have to hold ALL those acting under color of law accountable to the CONSTITUTION and LAWS of the United States of America for their Good Behaviour. The Supreme Court FIVE's[15] actions clearly violated the constitutionally assured rights of Mr. Thompson, by their own admission, and thus confirmed their BAD BEHAVIOUR. Their BAD BEHAVIOUR was motivated for self serving reasons to preserve their grant of ABSOLUTE POWER to themselves and "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[16]"
The Federal Courts have now FOUR times the 5th one is under consideration (4:12-cv-00703-CEJ), done the same to myself by Criminally denying me my Due Process Rights. "The Wrong,"[18] the basis of my injury, is uncontested in FOUR 8th Circuit Federal Court Appeals cases, 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425 and can be reviewed in detail there. For the sake of brevity I will state, verbatim, only the evidence of the LARGEST and most damaging denial of Due Process:
"The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."[19]
A Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process of law[20] is meaningless. This kidnapping was devastating[21] and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[22] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[23] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[24] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[25]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[26] spell of the concentrated power[27] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[28] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [29] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[30] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[31]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [32] 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,[33] 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[34] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[35] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[36] "before out of Court"[37] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[38]
"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. [39] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[40].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[43] 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,[44]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[45] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[46] 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"[47]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[48] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[49] "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),[50] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [51] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[52] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[53] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[54] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, April 30, 2012, 4:00:53 PM, 2012 04-30-12 What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice REV 01.doc
[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] FEDERALIST No. 78, "The Judiciary Department" From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, underlining and emphasis added for clarity
[5] Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 81 , The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788, underlining and emphasis added for clarity
[6] FEDERALIST No. 84 , Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 , Alexander Hamilton, non-italic parenthetical text, underlining and emphasis added for clarity
[7] 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of office:
"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
[9] Mr. Thompson said it in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in his case, Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571.
[10] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[11] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[12] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[13] 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."
[14] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[15] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[17] The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph – "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"
[19] IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003, Cause No. 03FC-010670. Petitioner, Sharon G. Jeep, denied any physical or verbal abuse at the subsequent divorce hearing in addition to the denials at the abuse hearing. It should be noted that if exigent circumstances were involved, they weren't, they should have STILL BEEN noted and respondent given a subsequent chance to be heard on the exigent/infamous charge as assured by constitutional Due Process right.
[20] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution… 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." (STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U. S. 398 (1932)).
[21] In the Jane Crow Era, Not only did it take my son and home it left emotionally devastated, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[22] "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)
[23] 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"
[24] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[25] 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.
[26] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[27] "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
[28] 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.
[29] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[30] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[31] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[32] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[33] 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.
[34] 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.
[35] "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
[36] 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."
[40] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[41] "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"
[43] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[44] 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
[45] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[46] 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.
[47] "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
[49] 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.
[53] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[54] "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
