The
1% percent likes to say they earned their money[2]
and the 99% are just jealous… say that is true, for the sake of argument. The 1% likes to go further and say anybody can
make a fortune in America.
I have to ask how? When the conservative
2nd, 3rd, 4th… generation is not willing to risk
their inherited wealth, on speculative
investment that new wealth is built on, sticks it in the proverbial mattress. Without external forces to dismantle inherited
wealth it becomes the divine right of wealth. The divine right of wealth built The
Egyptian Pyramids, The
Palace of Versailles, The Taj
Mahal or the Biltmore
estate.[3] The gold standard's balanced budget is what built
The
Egyptian Pyramids, The
Palace of Versailles, The
Taj Mahal or The
Biltmore estate.
I would debate whether a balanced budget is actually a good thing for America. Inflation is a GOOD thing!!!!! Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) in his Communist Manifesto (1848) predicted that
the Proletarians would revolt to throw off the Bourgeois. Now with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
Communist Block it is thought that Marx's prophecy will never come to fruition.
I have to disagree. It has ALREADY happened. The only exception being the Proletarians did
not use conventional weapons, they used Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild's weapon:
"Give
me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws."
Baron
Mayer Amschel de Rothschild (1818 –1874)
"We the People" threw off the Bourgeois by taking away the
gold standard with the "greenback" (1862). Abraham
Lincoln was the first president to use INFLATION to the good and issue a
paper currency — the "greenback" (1862) — that wasn't backed by gold or
silver. He did this to finance the Civil
War and free the slaves. Almost as was predicted
by Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) in his Communist Manifesto (1848) again except
for the fact that we were using a different nomenclature. "We the People" redistributed
the wealth by creating inflation.
Free Enterprise v. Communism is all about nomenclature. Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794–1877), a contemporary
of Karl Max (1818–1883), Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild (1818 –1874) and Abraham
Lincoln (1809–1865), was an American entrepreneur. At the time of his death he was reportedly the
richest man in America. Today he is still
believed to have been the richest man EVER in America. Relatively speaking he was richer that Bill Gates
is today, by a factor of 3.345. His fortune
was estimated at $100,000,000. The Gross
Domestic Product for the United States of America in 1877 was $8,520,000,000. That meant that as a percentage of GDP, relative
wealth, Vanderbilt was worth 1.2121% of GDP.
If you compare that to Bill Gates today $53,000,000,000 v. GDP (2010) of
$14,623,900,000,000 (+/-); Gates is worth 0.3624% of GDP. Vanderbilt as a percentage of GDP v Gate as a
percentage of GDP, 1.2121% of GDP 1877 v 0.3624% of GDP 2011: Vanderbilt was (1.2121%
/ 0.3624%) 3.345 times as rich as Gates relatively speaking.
Now Vanderbilt was not a bad man, he was a self made man of his era. Unlike Mr. Gates he left 95% of his fortune intact
to his son. So I ask where did it go. Most of it disappeared into inflation in the subsequent
134 years. We the People redistributed
the wealth by "control over a nation's currency." In the 134 years (1877-2011) between Vanderbilt's
death and today we have diluted his wealth by printing money and CREATING new wealth
($14,623,900,000,000 / $8,250,000,000= 1,773) by a factor 1,773. So if Vanderbilt had taken his wealth (not his
greenbacks) and just put it in his mattress, his 1877 wealth would be worth $56,414
($100,000,000/1,773) today.
We have achieved the results of Marx via the weapon of Rothschild and redistributed
the wealth without any wars, without any blood shed, without the micro management
of Communism. That is a GOOD thing.
IF Abraham Lincoln had not printed the "greenback," USING INFLATION, we
might still have ethnic slavery. If Franklin
D. Roosevelt had not started printing money, USING INFLATION, with the New Deal
we might today still be economic slaves to the robber barons, Vanderbilt. That is how "We the People,"
unbeknownst to ourselves, redistributed wealth and brought about the prophecy of
Marx without the blood shed, the denial of human rights, and the micro-management
that bankrupt the Communist Block.
I see no reason to hamstring ourselves today to balance the budget based on government
cut backs. Yes there is such a thing as hyperinflation,[4] we are not there yet. And to try to intimidate the American voting Public
into thinking that we are on the verge of hyperinflation is a misrepresentation
of the facts. Tax increases while maintaining
the government safety net would be a better solution to ward off the possibility
of hyperinflation. "We the People"
have government safety net because we have discovered through trial and error that
without a safety net the haves tend to push the have-nots over the cliff to protected
their vested interests. The GREAT DEPRESSION
and the New Deal taught us that didn't it?
Our current economic issue is the direct result of 30 years of the GOP's deregulation
in the Banking Industry and TAX cutting.
Bankers were able to create an over-inflated international housing bubble
with unregulated government insured loans.
"We the People" have taken it on the chin and burst the
over-inflated bubble. "We the
People" are now in the process of RE-regulating the Banking Industry
to hopefully avoid a repeat of this problem.
Now the GOP (Republicans) will tell you that Government action is not to be trusted. That is to assume the Government is something
other than "We the People." Government's efforts to correct a wrong will always
result in over regulation and wasted resources.
And to some extent that is correct.
Not because it is a government effort though. Government's flaws are the result of Government's
limited resources, humanity. Anything done
via humanity will be flawed as an unavoidable result of human fallibility. A government of the people, by the people and
for the people is, to date, the BEST way to get the onerous work of regulation done. Laissez-faire de-regulation is a seductive theory
but if our current economic issues, the result of banking DE-regulation, have taught
us anything, "We the People" need government's mutually
agreed authority to REGULATE and thus keep the GREED of "We the People"
in check.
We can eliminate the Bush era tax cuts and go a LONG way to balancing the Budget
and avoiding the possibility of hyperinflation.
Inflation is a GOOD thing.
Without making capital a perishable commodity, with inflation, "We the
People" end up building The
Egyptian Pyramids, The
Palace of Versailles, The Taj
Mahal or the Biltmore
estate monuments to the 1%, an individual, at the expense of the "We
the People."
Think
about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
|
|
1 |
Fortune |
GDP |
Relative Wealth |
|
|
2 |
Gates |
$53,000,000,000 |
$14,623,900,000,000 |
0.36% |
|
3 |
Vanderbilt |
$100,000,000 |
$8,250,000,000 |
1.21% |
|
4 |
||||
|
5 |
134 Year Inflation Rate |
C2 / C3 |
1,773 |
|
|
6 |
V Discounted by Inflation |
B3 / D5 |
$56,414 |
|
|
7 |
Vanderbilt v Gates |
D3 / D2 |
3.345 |
|
|
8 |
||||
|
9 |
Measuring
Worth is a service for calculating relative worth over time. |
|||
|
10 |
||||
PS:
Imagine if we had not invented
inflation and held to the gold standard and balanced budgets. The Vanderbilt's would be sitting on an even larger
percentage of GDP now. Balanced budgets and
the gold standard are what created The
Egyptian Pyramids, The
Palace of Versailles, The Taj
Mahal or the Biltmore
estate,[5] monuments to the individual
at the expense of the "We the People."
Something
else to Think about it!!!!!
THINK!!!!!
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[6]
condoned and supported by Supreme Court precedent be constitutional in a SANE government
of the people, by the people and for the people?
This is a massive
malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[7] self-serving conspiracy
against rights!!!
Historically,
the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels;
it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Absolute Immunity even in the supreme Court has
NEVER been established without, in most cases, multiple dissenting opinions.
To assume
that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States
of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio to exempt[8]
ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[9]
prosecutorial[10]and
enforcement[11]
power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional
scenario.[12]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[13]
This embarrasses the future and the past[14]
There are
no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles
of nobility.[15] We the People incorporated ourselves,
in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able
right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[16]
How can
the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional
commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[17]
from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid"[18]
i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[19]
by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st
and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[20]
We
the People have fallen under the despotic[21]
spell of the concentrated power[22]
in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[23]
from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[24]
the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [25]
the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[26]
and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[27])
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process" [28]
acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[29]
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,[30]
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[31]
grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[32]
by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
and "unlawful Conspiracy"[33]
"before out of Court"[34]
to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[35]
"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, Monday, July 16, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961
and 1967. [36] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
respectively said it originally in 1871[37].
Impeach[38] the current Black
Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[39]
for
condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able
right to justice[40] 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,[41]"
denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and
congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[42]
with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[43]
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!!!
Judicial modesty is
one of the best possible qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, a position
that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation along with it.
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"[44]"
for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[45]
e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[46]
"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 9
years.[47] I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration,
5 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 and 11-8211."
We hold
a "4-Year-Old
Can Be Sued."[48] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of
$75-$120+ billion. [49] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt
at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [50] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with
$787 billion. [51] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5
Trillion. [52] But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility
of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials
(prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)" [53] and compensate the victims?
That
is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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),[54]
Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [55]
Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[56]
and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[57] The fact that "With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported
prisoners"[58]
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, July 16, 2012,
4:01:28 PM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
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
a country in which
nobody[59]
is ever truly safe."[60]
"The
Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[61]
Connick,
District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
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] Originally blogged/published Tuesday,
February 15, 2011
[2] WSJ Blogs/The Wall Street Journal - September
22, 2011, 1:53 PM "Are We Entering the Age of Inherited Wealth?" By Robert
Frank
"The
release of the latest Forbes 400 List of Americans is, once again, being billed
as a triumph of self-made wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison –
all self-made – topped the list, once again. And Forbes heralds that fact that "a
record 70% of the Forbes listers are self-made."
Yet
their announcement obscures the fact that half of the top 10 on the Forbes list
have inherited all or some of their wealth, making America's billboard chart
of opportunity look increasingly like the lucky sperm club."
[3] The Biltmore
estate was built by the third generation, George
Washington Vanderbilt II (November
14, 1862 – March 6, 1914) The youngest child of William Henry Vanderbilt and
Maria Louisa Kissam. George III was named after his father's youngest brother, George
Washington Vanderbilt II, the third son to survive to adulthood of the family founder,
Cornelius Vanderbilt. (Uncle George II had died young at age 25 of tuberculosis
contracted during his service in the Civil War.) Cornelius' tenth child, George
I, was born in 1832 and died in 1836.
[4] In economics, hyperinflation
is inflation that is very high or "out of control".
[5] The Biltmore Estate was built on the
proceeds of Cornelius Vanderbilt, but it would have gone on and on like Royal Dynasty
without the advent of INFLATION.
[6] Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. 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 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.
[7] Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. 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 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.
[8]
"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 it a fantastic
or delusional scenario!!!!!
[9] ""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)
[10] 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)
[11] Supreme Court precedent empowers the
"knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8]
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)
[12] Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton
v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[13] Aldous Huxley
[14] "embarrass the future" ALBERT
W. FLORENCE, PETITIONER v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON
ET ALCite as: 566 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 ROBERTS, C. J., concurring 'Embarrass
the Future'? By LINDA GREENHOUSE New York Times, Northwest
Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 300 (1944)
[15] There
are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute
Immunity," Article
1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the United States" and Article
1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any
Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite
Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous
Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition,
New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme
law of the land:
"Nothing
need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e.,
absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone
of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious
danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."
You some how want
to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the
ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were
linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants
to assertion "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything
more than a prohibition of theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed,
need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the
asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and
there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being
above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate the
constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and
then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[16] Amendment I Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
[17] "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
[18] 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"
[19] 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.
[20] 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.
[21] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[22] "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
[23] "Power tends to corrupt,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always
bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you
superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse
heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in
a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[24] 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.
[25] Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[26] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[27] Incompetence is the most insidious and
it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[28] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process"
[29] "Power tends to corrupt,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always
bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you
superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse
heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in
a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[30] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes
the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FIVE
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.
[31] 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.
[32] "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
[33] 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."
[34] Lord
Coke Floyd
and Barker (1607)
[35] Lord
Coke Floyd
and Barker (1607)
[36] Monroe v. Pape, 365
U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson
v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[37] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374
& 394
[38] "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"
[39] Antonin
Scalia, Clarence
Thomas, Samuel
Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Connick,
District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[40] The redress of a justifiable grievance
REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[41] 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
[42] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall
make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."
[43] Amendment VII In Suits at common law,
where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined
in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[44] "absolute immunity… for all
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page
460 U. S. 335
[45] Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title
Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985
[46] 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.
[47] 9.12 years, 3,330 calendar days, 53,287
waking hours, 3,197,196 waking minutes, 191,831,788 waking waking seconds, as of Thursday June 28, 2012 10:54:41.35 AM
[48] "4-Year-Old
Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case" "Citing cases dating back
as far as 1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl
accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels
on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence." Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State Supreme
Court in Manhattan, New York Times, New York edition, published: October 28, 2010,
A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A24 By
Alan Feuer
[49] "Mark
Zandi the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "Dr. Zandi's analysis found
that the cost of rescuing the industry, across all aid programs would be at minimum
$75
billion, and maybe go as high as $120 billion or more."
[50] Cost of War in Iraq $804,350,051,831, Cost of War
in Afghanistan $537,364,138,152 Total Cost of Wars Since 2001$1,341,714,189,983
Please
enable Javascript for the counter to update.
[51] "Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval"
The New York Times, A version of this article appeared in print on February 14,
2009, on page A15 of the New York edition.
[52] "Bailout
Plan: $2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand" The New York Times, By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON
published: February 10, 2009
[53] Magna
Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
[54] Connick,
District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[55] Smith
v. Cain, No. 10-8145
[56] Ashcroft
v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011
[57] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425
and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[58] "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
[59] "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.
[60] "Damages" By Dahlia
Lithwick, Slate,
posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[61] 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
