Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
c/o The Clerk's Office
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: The Supreme Law of the Land and Absolute Immunity sub silentio?
Jeep v. The Government of the United States of America (4:12-cv-703-CEJ)
Dear Sirs,
I doubt seriously that from your biased corrupt power-addicted position you can even reconsider a corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent precedent, but here goes nothing. As I like to say, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[i]
You and others somehow fail to admit the inescapable fact of human nature. I would be willing to bet that 99.99% of all the Kings that ever lived were benevolent dictators. The problem in any monarchy is not so much in the Monarch as in the power hungry henchmen that operate in its shadow. Power attracts the worst of human nature. Now all these power hungry henchman, good and bad, operated with the authority of the King and thus could do no wrong. The damage done by any monarchy was and is normally instigated and at minimum committed by the power hungry henchman in the name of the Monarch. The Monarch need not even be involved directly.
It was thus obvious to the authors of the Constitution that there was to be NO immunity from the Supreme Law of Land, [ii] no titles of nobility,[iii] no absolutely immune power hungry henchman lurking beneath an absolutely immune leader. You have usurped and sustained absolute immunity for yourselves and your[iv] power hungry henchman over We the People's expressed constitutional desire to replace the divine will of the King with democratically established rule of the Supreme Law of Land.
As I have told you before, "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge (Judges) Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. 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 the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."[v]
How do you get off asserting: "As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior."[vi] For myself and Mr. Thompson, as I am sure you are aware those "difficult problems of proof," and "stringent standard of fault" to establish Justice are not just difficult and stringent they are as designed unequal protection of the law[vii] and insurmountable.[viii]
You obviously like to ignore the FACT that our preamble states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We the People thus incorporated ourselves into a Government to establish for EACH other SECURITY for Justice and liberty.
The Supreme Court needs to not only televise all its proceedings from arguments to in conference discussion, but the naked bathroom habits of each individual justice so as to ASSURE those that you have deceived for so long that you are all just human beings just like the rest of us, equal under the law.
"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."[ix] What are your victims of your fraud upon the court suppose to do, start our own country?
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 Supreme Law of the Land and Absolute Immunity sub silentio?" (10 pages)
cc: The Clerk's Office
My Blog - Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 8:42:17 AM
[i] Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer best known for his novels including "Brave New World"
[ii] "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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[iii] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[iii] 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." Additionally I cite 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 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"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."
[iv] "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)
[v] John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), known as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Bt from 1837 to 1869 and usually referred to simply as Lord Acton, in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887
[vii] Now nowhere in the precedent do you say how many repeated violations it takes to establish "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault," but whatever the number, say X have protection while any number less than X does not have protection. That amounts to UNEQUAL PROTECTION for those over verses those under X.
[viii] Insurmountable in that we have been told what the secret number is, X.
[ix] James Madison, 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.
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
