Friday June 01, 2012
Supreme Court of the United States
Re:The Supreme Law of the Land and Absolute Immunity sub silentio?
And
No matter what some people say, for the
sake of a cheap-shot laugh at the expense of a subordinate and courteous
advocate, we are not trying to regulate broccoli. I ask for Justice.
Dear Sirs,
Neither you nor the corrupt[2] guild of judges as a whole has any power outside of the ancient
and refined principles of Due Process of Law and the ends of
justice.[3] Due process is what you
do, the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights
that are owed to an individual person. Due
process balances the power of the government against the rights of the
individual persons to the ends of justice.[4] It protects individual
persons from being unjustly overwhelmed by the government. When a government harms a person without following
the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which
offends against the rule of law[5] and the ends of justice.[6]
Due process of law is an ancient
principle. Most scholars trace the idea
of due process of law in the Anglo-American tradition to Chapter 39[7] of the Magna Carta of 1215. King John promised among other
things not to imprison, exile, or destroy any free man or his property “except
by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The phrase “by the law of the land” meant
that government, like the governed, must obey the law. The phrase “due process of law” first
appeared in the subsequent 1354 version of the Magna Carta. Both phrases— “due process” and “law of the
land”—mean that government must follow known and established procedures
and may not act arbitrarily or unpredictably in negatively altering or
destroying life, liberty, or property.[8]
That being said “absolute immunity,” and its inevitable progeny absolute power,[9] as awarded by current UNCONSTITUTIONAL, corrupt and malicious self-serving assertions of power by
the guild of judges in Supreme Court precedent is a massive unconstitutional
conspiracy against the rights of persons.
Why would We the People have enacted the
Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land [10]
to replace the divine right of the King, if it was “intended sub silentio
to exempt”[11] anyone -- much
less, give “absolute immunity from subsequent damages[12] liability
for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the
judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
325 (1983)),
especially those tasked with judicial,[13]
prosecutorial[14]
and enforcement[15]
power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence[16]?
In essence that
unconstitutional corrupt and malicious action by the Supreme Court has now
taken absolute immunity away from one, the King, and given it to MANY!!!! It is an incredible,[17] fantastic and/or delusional scenario![18] We the People are paying the price, falling
down the slippery slope head over heels into the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[19] police
state in the modern world, “With 5% of the world's
population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.”[20]
The supreme law of the land (the
Constitution), due Process of law and the ends of justice[21] are NOT ambiguous
text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may subserve personal
malice.” [22]
We the People, as individual persons, have to
be able to hold our delegated authorities to the TERMS[23] of their oaths and
commissions[24] without the prerequisite of “an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that
they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives.
This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends
on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by
placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV[25] and
writing McCulloch[26]
with virtual representation in mind.”[27]
As a final note on an unrelated but yet
pertinent issue, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(H.R. 3590).”
I quote
Justice Holmes “I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to
go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.”[28] Your Job “in strictness, the people surrender nothing;
and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.”[29]
We the People have spoken albeit through our delegated
authorities the dysfunctional legislature.
No matter what some people say, for
the sake of a cheap-shot laugh at the expense of a subordinate and respectful advocate,
we are not trying to regulate broccoli.
Health Care is an
issue, if not addressed, that has the capacity to literally bankrupt us. Health care is not an issue that can be dealt
with effectively by unregulated, free-market, lazze faire, Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776),
outdated ideas. This is a 21st
Century Issue that demands a 21st Century solution.
Adam Smith never conceived of a case
where supply could never satiate demand.
We are all going to die and no matter how much unproductive, out of proportion
end of life care we demand… WE ARE ALL STILL GOING TO DIE!!!!! To extend life, we have to learn from every
other developed country in the world and start to spend our efforts and dollars
on well-care as opposed to end of life care!!!!
Adam Smith, a 17th century
man, lost out to the fundamental principals of Karl Marx, a 19th
century man, at the beginning of the 20th Century with the progressive movement (1890s
to the 1920s). At the end of the 19th Century
free market capitalism was un-checked and largely un-taxed. The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman
Act,[1]
July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) a landmark federal statute on competition law, abrogating
unregulated free-markets, passed by Congress in 1890. The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment
XVI) to the United States Constitution that allows the Congress to levy
an income tax was
ratified on February 3, 1913.
The Square Deal was
President Theodore Roosevelt's Trust-Busting domestic program
(1901 – 1909) formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural
resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. Now Marxist’s socialism (published 1848), devoid of the
totalitarianism of communism, had largely won over the world under the title of
“The Square Deal” at
the start of the great depression. The
final victory for Marxist’s
socialism (published 1848),
came not with Vladimir Lenin
nor Mao Zedong but with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s
New Deal and its accompanying safety
net, social programs. The fall of the Berlin
Wall (1989) was not a defeat of Marxist’s socialism (published 1848) it was a
defeat of Lenin’s and Mao’s Communism’s TOTALITARIUMISM.
And the reason is Marxist’s socialism (published 1848) has prevailed
is because it is based on Justice
not survival of the fittest as FIRST purported
by James Madison in 1788, FEDERALIST No. 51:
“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. In a
society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and
oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of
nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the
stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are
prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government
which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will
the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive,
to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as
the more powerful.”[30]
See also 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in
11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211.
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”
Revised and Extended Sunday,
June 03, 2012, 3:15:46
AM
David G. Jeep
[1] see also 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings
in 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and
07-2614, Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and
11-8211.
[2] We the People have fallen under the despotic
spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE
POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt” judges, the
“malicious or dishonest” prosecutor,
the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" and “all
(malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent ) persons -- governmental or
otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION.
[3] “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.” 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, 17 88.
[4] “Justice
is the end of government.” Ibid.
[6] “Justice
is the end of government.” Ibid.
[7] The
Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the
first modern attempt at limiting government, also established the right
of redress: “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…
[8] “HOW HAS
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION?”18
(CCEWTP00007)
[9] "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
[10] “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
[11] “To
assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against
state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those
same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[Footnote 2/27]” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
363 (1983) I would assert an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional
scenario!!!!!
[12] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. The evil and CORRUPT factions in the guild
of judges know this VERY WELL!!! I have been forced into poverty,
homelessness for FOUR YEARS!
[13] “"It is a principle of our law that
no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial
act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly;
therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public
are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and
was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent
them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer
220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.
349 (1871)
[14] 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)
[15] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[15]
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)
[16] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. The evil and CORRUPT factions in the guild of judges
know this VERY WELL!!! 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.
[17] “To
assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against
state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those
same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[Footnote 2/27]” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
363 (1983) I would assert an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional
scenario!!!!!
[18] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504
U.S. 25 (1992) dismiss
because of a “fantastic and/or delusional
scenario”
[19] As regards state Prosecutors, “States
can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do” 12/08/2010
USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy
(“Federal
prosecutors series”). The "OPR
is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine,
the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The
public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the
government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement “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] “With 5% of the world's
population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.” (“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 )
[21] “Justice
is the end of government.” Ibid.
[22] Paraphrased from ““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.””as Thomas Jefferson was
referring to the Judiciary in a letter To John Tyler
Monticello, May 26, 1810
[23] “Justice
is the end of government. Ibid.
[24] 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.”
[25]
Article. IV., Section. 2. “The Citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in
the several States.”
[27] “Equality in the War on Terror” by Neal K.
Katyal, Georgetown
University Law
Center
[28] Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, letter to
Harold J. Laski, March
4, 19 20.—Holmes-Laski Letters, ed. Mark DeWolfe Howe, vol. 1, p. 249
(1953).
[29] 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, 17 88
[30] 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, 17 88.
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
