The United States of America is the LARGEST POLICE STATE
in the world today
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
Tuesday, May 08, 2012, 11:14:14 AM
"With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[4] The press and the powers that be like to blame it on the WAR on DRUGS. But virtually everywhere drugs are illegal, the result of United States of America's free(?) trade agreements.
Imagine yourself accused, with the threat of conviction for a crime you DID NOT COMMIT. IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!! Now add to that picture the unavoidable current reality, ALL of your accusers will gain from your conviction and ALL of your accusers have absolutely NOTHING TO LOSE i.e., "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability."[5]
How do you defend yourself against a crying woman in the Jane Crow Era[6] (1974-present), especially if she is cute and sympathetic, just like the girl you loved and married so long ago? Or what if it is just a traffic cop[7] out to maintain a perfect conviction rate while increasing the number of tickets issued to meet some bureaucratic quota? Or what if it is a long standing well respected prosecutor[8] or judge[9] up for re-election looking to impress the voters with a tough on crime persona?
There are people out there seemingly astonished by the fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[10] We the People NO LONGER live in the land of the free, the home of the brave. Yet we are considered the richest, most influential country in the world. In our police state imprisons 5 times as many of our citizens than any other developed country in the WORLD!!!!
The United States of America is currently
the LARGEST POLICE STATE
in the world today.
The reason is obvious to the impoverished victims We the People have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!! The malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[11] justice system has a free hand to indulge[12] their absolute power to the end of their absolute corruption.[13]
We the People have NO ENFORCABLE RIGHTS in United States of America TODAY!!!!!
Supreme Court precedent provides for "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability[14] for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983). How is the victim of the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[15] to fund the VERY EXPENSIVE "legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded"[16] as justice requires "every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress"[17] much less expose, punish and deter the malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[18] perpetrators for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[19] WITHOUT monetary damages for the effort.????
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "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)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[20] by saying, "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)
Supreme Court precedent empowers all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[21] persons by saying "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), acting under color of law in the furtherance of "false and malicious Persecutions."[22] For the reasoning behind immunity the Supreme Court has said:
In addressing the consequences of subjecting judges[23] 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)
The enforcement of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[24] is admittedly a burden. But is it intimidation? Is not the burden of We the People's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[25] their JOB, is that not why they get paid for???? Is that no why we call it work instead of play???? Is not the enforcement of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[26] the raison d'être for our Justice system?????
We the People no longer have access to the jury system that assures the intrinsic reciprocity of the golden rule. We the People now live in the PLEA BARGAIN era where prosecutors can knowingly present false and dishonest evidence, the police can knowingly present false testimony ALL in support of the stacked deck CORRUPT plea bargain - plea out for 5 years or we present all our malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[27] evidence under color of law to send you up for 5 plus years or LIFE IN PRISON!!!! Malice, corruption, dishonesty, perjury and incompetence are all valued weapons in the justice system's war on We the People's civil liberties, these are suppose to be our revered heroes that protect and defend We the People's civil liberties.
Now if you naively believe that someone, ANYONE is going to prosecute a crying woman, who was allegedly been abused, YOU ARE CRAZY as a LOON!!!!
Now if you naively believe that someone, ANYONE is going to prosecute a "malicious or corrupt" judge, YOU ARE CRAZY as a big fat crazy LOON!!!!
Now if you naively believe that someone, ANYONE is going to prosecute a "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, YOU ARE CRAZY as a big fat ugly crazy LOON!!!!
Now if you naively believe that someone, ANYONE is going to prosecute "knowingly false testimony by police officers", YOU ARE CRAZY as a big fat ugly crazy and DIM-WITTED LOON!!!!
Now if you naively believe that someone, ANYONE is going to prosecute any "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," acting under color of law in the furtherance of "false and malicious Persecutions."[28] YOU ARE a big fat ugly crazy and DIM-WITTED LOON!!!!
We the People are here to be persecuted by our government; We the People, Citizens of the United States of America, can not and SHOULD NEVER expect the protection of the laws. In England they had the protection of the laws 1215 with The Magna Carta (§ 61),[29] 27 years after our revolution per Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in 1803, 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,[30] and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court,"
(Page 5 U. S. 163)
(Page 5 U. S. 163)
asserted the same protection for We the People.
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[31] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[32] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[33] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[34]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[35] spell of the concentrated power[36] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[37] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [38] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[39] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[40]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [41] 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,[42] 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[43] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[44] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[45] "before out of Court"[46] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[47]
"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. [48] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[49].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[52] 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,[53]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[54] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[55] 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"[56]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[57] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[58] "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),[59] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [60] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[61] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[62] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[63] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, May 08, 2012, 11:14:14 AM, 2012 05-08-12 The United States of America is the LARGEST POLICE STATE REV 00
[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] "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
[5] 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.
[6] The Jane Crow era was instigated to protect children and woman with the Rule of Law in 1974 to wit "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" (CAPTA) and then broaden into the witch hunt it is today with "The Violence Against Women Act of 1994" (VAWA). The witch-hunt for villains has, in effect, done just the opposite. No ONE has any enforceable rights in the United States of America today.
[7] It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations (integrity and competence), which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney (police and Judges), will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none"[7] Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (non-italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
[8] It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations (integrity and competence), which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney (police and Judges), will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none"[8] Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (non-italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
[9] It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations (integrity and competence), which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney (police and Judges), will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none"[9] Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (non-italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
[10] "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
[11] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[12] "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, May 26, 1810
[13] "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
[14] 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.
[16] "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." "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." 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
[17] "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." "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." 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
[18] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[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!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[23] i.e., "prosecutors," "police officers" and or "all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent, persons -- governmental or otherwise. Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[27] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[28] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) was supposedly the basis for judicial immunity at common law.
[29][29] "If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security…"
[30] The Petition of Right (1628) affirmed as a bill by the Long Parliament in 1641. It has been considered a declaratory act or simply a petition, which permitted an individual harmed by the government to take action against the crown in the United Kingdom since 1628.
[31] "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)
[32] 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"
[33] 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.
[34] 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.
[35] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[36] "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
[37] 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.
[38] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[39] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[40] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[41] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[42] 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.
[43] 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.
[44] "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
[45] 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."
[48] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[49] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[50] "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"
[52] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[53] 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
[54] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[55] 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.
[56] "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
[58] 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.
[62] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[63] "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
