Broccoli Syndrome
In REVERSE
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, June 11, 2012, 9:50:00 AM
By now we have all heard the cheap-shot from the senile ideologue Antonin Scalia, stuck in the mud,[4] at the recent Supreme Court arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (H.R. 3590) individual mandate to buy health insurance i.e., "Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli?"
Well if jurisprudence were somehow to be dependent on the quick witted response rather than constitutionally based consideration, I would have suggested that the Solicitor General should have SHOUTED in reply as to the regulation of broccoli:
"You bet your sweet bippy!!![5] If the consumption of broccoli unavoidably affected the health of every person in the United States of America and accounted for an escalating,[6] soon to be overwhelming, 14% of the Gross National Product as Health Care now does then… YES, We the People could and SHOULD be obligated to regulate the consumption of broccoli via an individual mandate" or whatever other measure We the People think appropriate. In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I would quote Alexander Hamilton[7] from the Federalist Papers "Here, 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."" We the People regulate criminal activity and the production of many commodities, e.g., wheat, insurance, utility rates, competition,[8] and etc.
The possibility that the senility of Antonin Scalia, stuck in the mud,[9] might actually have input on the constitutionally based consideration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) is a scary thought. We all too quickly forget the lessons of history.
The Royalist Supreme Court is enforcing their corrupt malicious, dishonest and incompetent will on We the People with a "Broccoli Syndrome in REVERSE." The Broccoli syndrome as utilized Scalia in the current healthcare debate attempts to assert un-constitutionality by comparing a Major issue, an escalating[10] 14% of the Gross National Product of Health Care, to a Minor issue broccoli - asserting that both are not possible so both are unconstitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. The admittedly minor issue of Broccoli does not even come near the MAJOR issue an escalating[11] 14% of the Gross National Product of Health Care.
Broccoli Syndrome In REVERSE
The broccoli syndrome as asserted by Scalia and installed into Supreme Court precedent with Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), the origins of Judicial Immunity in the American Justice system. Both Randall and Bradley concern issues regarding lawyers who's names had been stricken from the bar by a Judge. They both revolve around minor issues of legal infighting. On the surface that is. Both Randall and Bradely are supposedly based on Common Law Immunity derived from Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607). But the Royalist Supreme Court has taken the precedent, minor issue of legal infighting, as compared to broccoli and empowered their own self-serving over-reaching MAJOR issue of absolute corruption with absolute immunity, "I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged"[12] as compared to an escalating,[13] 14% of the Gross National Product of Health Care, "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses (an escalating) nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[14] i.e., the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[15] police state in the modern world. We the People are paying the price for this Broccoli Syndrome In REVERSE, falling down the slippery slope head over heels into the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[16] police state in the modern world.
I and OTHERS say again "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[17] We the People are being made into the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[18] police state in the modern world.
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"[19] 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[20] 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… an unlawful Conspiracy."[21]
We the People have been swallowing the Supreme Court's "Broccoli Syndrome In REVERSE" for nearly 100-147 years post civil war respectively Jim Crow and absolute immunity, a growth industry.
Post Civil War the victorious majority of We the People passed into law the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1876). The Royalist Supreme Court voided it 7 years later with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and then iced the cake with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) creating the concept and sanctioning 100 years of government sponsored "Separate and Unequal." The royalist Supreme Court is directly and unequivocally responsible for 100 years (1865- Civil Rights Act 1964) of Jim Crow's racial unrest and criminal malfeasants after the end of the American Civil War (1861–1865).
The Majority of the victorious We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and the President in 1876 NEVER wanted segregation. I say that again We the People never wanted segregation!!!!!! The Majority of We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and Presidents[22] passed into constitutional law AMENDMENT XIII (Passed by Congress January 31, 1865, Ratified December 6, 1865), AMENDMENT XIV (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, Ratified July 9, 1868), AMENDMENT XV (Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, Ratified February 3, 1870), and said "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" as a result they then constitutionally authorized[23] the statutory law the Force Act of 1870-1875[24], The Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1876).[25]
The Royalist Supreme Court forced segregation upon the victorious majority of We the People by voiding their constitutionally[26] authorized national corrective statutory efforts. The Civil Rights Act (1876) clearly prohibited segregation, yet seven years after it was passed The Royalist Supreme Court VOIDED the Civil Rights Act (1876) with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and then iced the cake with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) creating the concept and sanctioning 100 years of government sponsored "Separate and Unequal."
I will and have always refused to believe that Thurgood Marshall was the first person,[27] black or white, to think of suing for the "equal" in separate but equal. I have always held that the Royalist Supreme Court utilized its Royalist discretion to not entertain the obvious issue, claim immunity, to in essence look the other way, with absolute immunity, to inequality thus breaching its responsibility and establishing its malfeasants. There is no way in a country based on equal protection you can install 100 years of "Separate and Unequal" without a Royalist's IMMUNE prerogative to ignore the INHERENT unconstitutional inconsistency.
You ought to actually read the Royalist Supreme Court opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)[28] if you never have. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) is an openly racist manifesto.[29] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) has always been regarded as the source of the term Separate but Equal. Separate but Equal does not even appear in the Majority opinion. The majority opinion references "equal, but separate," separate being the controlling exception to the rule. "Equal, but separate" does not even come close to Separate but Equal. The majority opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) all but sanctions the Jim Crow race warfare that would consume us unnecessarily for a 100 years. Separate and VERY unequal better describes the majority opinion. John Harlan's well-reasoned timely dissent to the majority's opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) supporting integration, which spoke for the majority of the people at the time, has the only reference to Separate but Equal.
We the People in 1876 passed the ORIGINAL Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act (1876) is a virtual match with the Civil Rights Act (1964). If the Supreme Court had not over-ruled the majority of We the People as represented by both house of congress and the President of the United States U.S. Grant to void the Civil Rights Act (1876) in favor of segregation with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) there would have been any SEGREGATION, no Jim Crow, no 60's race riots, no Rodney King riots and no 100 years of racial motivated lynching. We would have dealt with race as an issue as the victorious We the People wanted to in a smaller, more immediate, civilized and less violent world in 1876 before it had morphed throughout a 100 year lifespan into the institution of Jim Crow.
Supreme Court precedent based on Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) TODAY, 147 years after the civil war, 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 then 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 then empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[30] 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 then empowers all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[31] 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"[32]
Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) was a judicial deception to give the judiciary immunity from the then recently enacted, over President Johnson's Veto[33] expressed concerns about "assailing the independence of the judiciary" that would result from, Civil Rights Act of 1866[34] without addressing the issue in the larger context of absolute immunity across the board in the larger picture, "I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged"[35] e.g., healthcare BIG picture, broccoli minor issue. Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the constitutional congressionally enacted CIVIL LIABILITY by the Civil Rights Act of 1871.[36]
Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[37] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was our intent to give absolute immunity sub silentio[38] i.e., to exempt "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,[39] prosecutorial[40] and enforcement[41] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence?[42]
There is no coincidence in the relative dates The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Randall 1869, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bradley 1871. Judicial Immunity for civil rights enforcement went somehow unquestioned for nearly 100 years. This hundred years it should be noted included the very worst of, post civil war, racial atrocities and civil rights abuses. To think that somehow some one never thought to question a judge's immunity from civil rights abuses seems almost nonsensical.
That changed largely as the result of the America's non-violent civil rights movement 1950-1980. But even with the empowerment of African America's civil rights, immunity for civil rights has become a burgeoning growth industry within Supreme Court Precedent. In the recent past the Supreme Court has awarded starting with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 558 (1967) Judicial absolute immunity[43] as regards Civil Rights, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial absolute immunity[44] as regards Civil Rights, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) as regards what can only be described despotic judicial absolute immunity as regards Civil Rights and finally Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) which states "The common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" absolute immunity[45] as regards Civil Rights for EVERYBODY integral parts of the judicial process.
"The Judiciary has been allowed to foist a fantastic or delusional scenario[46] on We the People i.e., the Judiciary has forced We the People to exchange the immunity of the divine right of Kings for "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[47]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process."[48] This in effect is an exchange for absolute immunity for ONE, the King, to many all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[49] persons. The Judiciary has done this by allowing its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in the 12-year period, Tuesday October 01, 1996 thru Tuesday September 30, 2008. In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits all judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so "perfunctory" that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw judicial power"[50] talk about a "fantastic or delusional scenario" to support ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY the self-serving seizure of ABSOLUTE POWER
The issues in this and all prior petitions[51] are of a nature that any and all sitting members of the judiciary are unavoidably impacted by the inherent malice, corruption, dishonesty, and incompetence,[52] of the prior unconstitutional and unsustainable assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY of our so called Justice system.[53]
Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[54] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was our intent to give absolute immunity sub silentio to exempt[55] "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,[56] prosecutorial[57] and enforcement[58] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence?[59]
In essence that took absolute immunity away from one, the King, and gave it to MANY!!!! It is an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario![60] We the People are paying the price, falling down the slippery slope head over heels into the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[61] 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."[62]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn[63] to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[64] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[65] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[66] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[67]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[68] spell of the concentrated power[69] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[70] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [71] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[72] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[73]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [74] 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,[75] 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[76] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[77] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[78] "before out of Court"[79] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[80]
"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. [81] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[82].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[85] 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,[86]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[87] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[88] 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"[89]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[90] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[91] "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),[92] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [93] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[94] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[95] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[96] 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, June 11, 2012, 9:50:00 AM, 2012 06-07-12 Broccoli Syndrome In REVERSE REV 01
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228
[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] Supreme Court precedent all too often sticks We the People in the mud of outdated parochial interpretation of nine old out of touch persons
[5] Catchphrase from Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In an American sketch comedy television program that ran for 140 episodes from January 22, 1968, to May 14, 1973.
[6] Health care costs doubled from 1996 to 2006, and are projected to rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 and 49% in 2082, P. R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948
[7] Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788, To the People of the State of New York:
[9] Supreme Court precedents all too often sticks We the People in the mud of outdated parochial interpretation of nine old out of touch persons
[10] Health care costs doubled from 1996 to 2006, and are projected to rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 and 49% in 2082. P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948
[11] Health care costs doubled from 1996 to 2006, and are projected to rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 and 49% in 2082. P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948
[13] Health care costs doubled from 1996 to 2006, and are projected to rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 and 49% in 2082. P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948
[14] "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)
[15] 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.
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy. As regards federal prosecutors I assert 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.
[16] 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.
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy. As regards federal prosecutors I assert 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.
[17] "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)
[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.
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy. As regards federal prosecutors I assert 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.
[19] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[20] 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] Amendments 13, 14 and 15 all had the provision "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
[24] Series of four acts passed by the U.S. Congress (1870–75) to protect the rights guaranteed to blacks by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The acts authorized federal authorities to penalize any interference with the registration, voting, office holding, or jury service of blacks. Violations produced over 5,000 indictments and 1,250 convictions throughout the South. The Supreme Court later ruled sections of the acts unconstitutional.
[25] The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875.
The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison.
The 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.
[26] Amendments 13, 14 and 15 all had the provision "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
[27] Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850), First suit for INTEGRATED SCHOOLS Charles Sumner first suit for INTEGRATED SCHOOLS in 1850!!!!! Ida Bell Wells-Barnett (July 16, 1862 – March 25, 1931) On May 4, 1884, a train conductor Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad ordered Wells to give up her seat and move to the smoking car, which was already crowded with other passengers. SHE REFUSED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[28] They are readily available online Justia website Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) or Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) or Google them.
[29] "There were thousands of free colored people in this country before the abolition of slavery, enjoying all the essential rights of life, liberty and property the same as white citizens, yet no one at that time thought that it was any invasion of his personal status as a freeman because he was not admitted to all the privileges enjoyed by white citizens, or because he was subjected to discriminations in the enjoyment of accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of amusement. Mere discriminations on account of race or color were not regarded as badges of slavery." That is a bold face LIE, they complained, they were not heard, they had no LEGAL voice!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[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!!!! "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.
[33] This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.…
[34] Now codified into current statute law as TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS § 241 - § 249
[36] Now codified into current statute law as TITLE 42 - CHAPTER 21 -CIVIL RIGHTS - SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY § 1981 - § 1985.
[37] "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
[38] "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!!!!!
[39] ""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)
[40] 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)
[41] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[41] 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)
[42] 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!!! As did King John of England with the Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress and as stated to King George III in the Declaration of Independence 1776, "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." 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.
[43] ""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)
[44] 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)
[45] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[45] 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)
[47] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[48] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (non-italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
[49] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[50] "My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
[51] 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 and 11-8211"
[52] 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.
[53] 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.
[54] "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
[55] "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!!!!!
[56] ""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)
[57] 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)
[58] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[58] 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)
[59] 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.
[61] 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.
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy. As regards federal prosecutors I assert 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.
[62] "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)
[63] 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."
[64] "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)
[65] 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"
[66] 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.
[67] 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.
[68] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[69] "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
[70] 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.
[71] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[72] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[73] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[74] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[75] 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.
[76] 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.
[77] "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
[78] 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."
[81] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[82] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[83] "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"
[85] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[86] 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
[87] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[88] 7th Amendment "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."
[89] "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
[91] 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.
[95] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[96] "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
