Friday, June 1, 2012

Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Antonin Scalia - 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 Just



Friday June 01, 2012

Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Antonin Scalia
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[1])
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 broccoliI 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. §§ 17) 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

cc:  My Blog - Sunday, June 03, 2012, 3:15:46 AM


[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, 1788.
[4]Justice is the end of government.” Ibid.
[5] As paraphrased from “Due process” Wikipedia Thursday, May 31, 2012.
[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 do12/08/2010 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 published: April 16, 2012, 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, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365-1394 (2007)
[28] Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, letter to Harold J. Laski, March 4, 1920.—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, 1788
[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, 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