Thursday, July 19, 2012

The Origin of the Love of virtue


The Origin of the Love of virtue
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[1] is ever truly safe."[2]
Thursday, July 19, 2012, 3:11:37 PM

The "common good" - Love of virtue - The Golden RuleThe Ethic of Reciprocity - Justice[4] as defined in every viable religion and democratic union known to man since the dawn of time is the spring[5] that makes people into a civilization as opposed to the anarchy of self-motivated individuals in nature. 

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”  (John Adams,  Year: 1780, Context: Article VII, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts).

The "reckonable"[6] Rule of Law, be it religiously or secularly based, is the means for establishing and communicating the consensus for the intrinsic Love of virtue across a varied and disparate group.

The Rule of Law without the inherent spring of the Love of virtue would be logistically impossible to even attempt.  Just imagine if people actually believed crime as a plausible alternative i.e., if they thought criminal activity viable.  It is not the deterrents that deter crime it is the Love of virtueThe preponderance of victimless crimes in our courts today proves this.  Victimless crimes do not have the weight of a wronged victim that is normally a requisite for society to act against liberty.[7]  Just imagine if traffic violations, murder, arson, assault, theft or fraud were devoid of a victim.  Would we be afraid of the retribution of society without the normally requisite retribution of a motivated victim?  I think the preponderance of victimless crimes unequvically proves this, "Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population"[8]

People stop at stop-signs, refrain from violence, refuse the opportunity to steal, and live peacefully with one another by way of the Love of virtue because the yield is intrinsic and beyond value.  The intrinsic value of living securely and peacefully exceeds the extrinsic profit to be had by violation of Love of virtue - The Golden RuleThe Ethic of Reciprocity – Justice.[9]  Since the dawn of time, when the first two cave persons shared the first cave, the ethic of reciprocity has been The Golden Rule.

"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism.[10] It is, of course, the Golden Rule—the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated."[11]
We stop at stop signs, respect the property rights of others because we have the primeval first-hand knowledge that without the ethic of reciprocity we, strong or weak, would be at risk every second of EVERY DAY! 

James Madison (1751–1836), the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817) and considered the "Father of the Constitution," in the Federalist Papers (#51) at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America said it best:

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuitIn a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful." 

The Republicans and their laissez-faire economic beliefs would have you believe that survival of the fittest, with its asserted god-like invisible hand,[12] is the only faire way to assure the Golden Rule's justice and equality.  Scientifically, if not morally, the inherent flaw of the GOP's eugenics, survival of the fittest, inhibits if not denies the requisite randomness to produce the next-new-thing.  The divine right of Kings proved, I would think for all time, that inbreeding produces a decline, not evolution.

Love of virtue, economically speaking, is what fuels the development of the next new thing.  Ask any entrepreneur from Edison to Gates and they will tell you yes, their ultimate goal was to make money, but the acknowledged essential prerequisite goal was and had to be to build a better mouse trap than the competition was selling.  Building a better mouse trap is synonymous with the love of virtue the willingness to put the interests of the community, a better mouse trap for the community, ahead of private interests, to make money.  Neither Edison nor Gates would have been successful if they had NOT provided a better mouse trap for the community.

An economy/civilization can not exist for long based solely on the self-centered interests of unregulated free-markets devoid of the Love of virtue.  One need only look at the corruption of the unregulated trusts, cartels, monopolies and labor unions at the turn of the 19th Century and into the first half of the 20th century in the American economy.  The Sherman Antitrust Act's (1890)[13] and the Taft–Hartley Act's (1947)[14] Love of virtue of competition was the result.

Love of virtue is what makes people stop at stop signs and keeps our children safe on the way home form school and our banks safe from robbers.  Self-centered interests and fear of Law and Order deterrents alone can not do it; there has to be an intrinsic reason for people to obey the law.  Deterrents are a necessary evil, to reinforce and support the love of virtue at the fringes of society.  Society at large obeys the law because it is the virtuous thing to do. For law and order to succeed the people have to buy into the intrinsic need for a law, the love of virtue, for it to succeed.  If the law is not based in a common good it will either be ignored or repealed.  There has to be an intrinsic and self evident love of the virtue of the law.  For example The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) currently in dispute in our Federal courts, the president refuses to enforce it on constitutional grounds, that it embarrasses[15] the intrinsic love of virtue, equal protection[16] our constitutional system is based on.

Do we live as animals, survival of the fittest, or are We the People civilized by our assertion of the democratically derived and sustained supreme law of the land, the Constitution for the United States of America?????

The Civilization of humanity has been trying to extricate itself from its animalistic nature since its inception.  One need only read the creeds/bible of any of our religions:

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."[17]

"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."[18]

"In all that we do, we must be guided by that simple command that binds all great religions together: Love thy neighbor as thyself."[19]

We the People have lost the requisite common purpose to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests i.e., Justice.  We the People have been mislead by the erroneously asserted superiority of laissez-faire capitalism over communism's asserted failed common purpose to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. 

It is JUST COMMON SENSE!!!!

No one is ever safe unless Justice for all is the goal.  Anyone that has ever been in combat can tell you that surprise can overtake strength of numbers anytime.  Any motivated minority can wreak havoc, via terrorism, in any civilized society.  We the People have to eliminate the minority's motivation to wreak havoc, via terrorism.  We the People have to work for FULL inclusion.  We the People can not exclude anyone, Justice for all!!!!!  To maintain peace We the People have to be constantly vigilant in pursuit of Justice for all.  Unless We the People are vigilant, We the People will be taken over by an oligarchy professing safety and freedom but delivering totalitarianism.

Those that assert we should do nothing about the injustice of poverty, because whatever we do we will always have lazy people living off the dole, have never really considered the issues of poverty.  Poverty yes can be an inbred tendency, but as a rich man unjustly leaves his, potentially unworthy, heirs money, maybe talented and a hard work ethic; the incompetent man unjustly leaves his heirs his incompetence.  We have to struggle to break the cycle[20] and maximize the utilization of equity, talent and effort with an equitable sustainable system of education and inheritance, guided by John Rawls' principles of justice through the use of an artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance.

Democracy's purpose at the birth of our nation was very socialistic, Marxist if you will,[21] to take the wealth out of the hand of the nobility and put it within reach of everyone.  And the United States of America has been very successful divvying up the new world's unexploited North American continent.  We lag behind the old world in truly establishing justice for all when we constitutionalized[22] slavery and then institutionalized Jim Crow and now the Jane Crow[23]/Plea Bargain.[24]  The United States of America is currently largest police state in the world.  We imprison FIVE times as many of our people as any other country.  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[25]

The Love of virtue is an ESSENTIAL component of a republic just as Montesquieu in 1748 originally asserted in "The Spirit of the Laws" (French: De l'esprit des lois).  There has to be a common goal, a larger goal for the group to supersede the individual's singular capacity.

Are we a group of individuals are We the People a country?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not socialism it is JUSTICE.  Affordable healthcare is about JUSTICE!!!  Prior to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 health care universal healthcare for America was inefficiently, inadequately and unjustly provided via the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986.  Anyone needing healthcare, that could not afford or did not have access to health care insurance, had to demand emergency healthcare treatment in the emergency room.  There were no reimbursement provisions for hospitals for this treatment.  This was an injustice to both the hospital required to FOR FREE provide service and an injustice to the welfare of those that could not afford or did not have access to Health Insurance, forcing them into emergency room and denying them life prolonging well-care.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not about socialism it is about JUSTICE.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides justice in the form of reimbursement to the hospitals.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides access to well-care for those with preexisting conditions that could not get health care in the past.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides access to well-care for those that could not get affordable healthcare because their employer could not afford it.  AND YES the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides access to well-care EVEN for those that can not or will not pay for it via taxation!!!!!!

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as enacted in 2010 is an attempt to establish Justice by providing a means of reimbursement for the hospital and universally establishing the availability of well-care and emergency care for all persons!!!!!!

"Republicans (GOP) say they trust the people. If that's true, then they won't waste another futile breath bashing the court for upholding Obamacare. They'll explicitly tell the country how they would replace it.  Democracy is a contest between alternatives, not a deus ex machina stroke from the (unconstitutional absolutely immune) lords in black robes."[26]

If we truly want to maintain a democratic republic it is essential that We the People uphold the Love of virtue: "

Political candidates will have to spend less time trying to exploit class divisions and more time trying to remedy them — less time calling their opponents out of touch elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that comprehensively address the problem. It's politically tough to do that, but the alternative is national suicide."[27]

We the People have become the largest most corrupt, malicious and incompetent[28] police state in the developed world by giving absolute immunity to an oligarchy.  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[29]  Our system of Justice, via the Supreme Court (an oligarchy) Precedent condones malice corruption, dishonesty and incompetence. [30]

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[31] 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[32] 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[33] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[34] prosecutorial[35]and enforcement[36] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[37] 

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[38]
This embarrasses the future and the past![39]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility. [40]  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.[41]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[42] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[43] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[44] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[45]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[46] spell of the concentrated power[47] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[48] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[49] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [50] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[51] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[52]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [53] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[54]

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,[55] 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[56] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[57] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[58] "before out of Court"[59] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[60]

"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, Thursday, July 19, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [61]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[62]

Impeach[63] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[64]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[65] 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,[66]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[67] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[68] 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"[69]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[70] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[71] "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.[72]  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."[73]  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [74]  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [75]  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [76]  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [77]  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)" [78]  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),[79] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [80] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[81] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[82]   The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[83] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!


DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday, July 19, 2012, 3:11:37 PM, 2012 07-01-12 Love of virtue REV 00

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
(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] "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."  Federalist Paper #51 James Madison
[5] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[6] "Predictability, or as Llewellyn put it, "reckonability," is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (Supreme Court Justice): "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules" 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[7] I assume the inviolable First Principle of Justice from "A Theory of Justice" a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls (1921-2002). It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999.
"First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others."
[9] "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."  Federalist Paper #51 James Madison
[12] In economics, invisible hand or invisible hand of the market is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.[1] This is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith.
[13] The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 17) is a landmark federal statute on competition law passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition in the marketplace, and requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of being in violation. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government. However, for the most part, politicians were unwilling to refer to the law until Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901–1909).
[14] Taft–Hartley Act, as stated in Section 1 (29 U.S.C. § 141), the purpose of the NLRA is:
To promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.
[16] Amendment 14th , assed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[20] John Bordley Rawls (February 21, 1921 - November 24, 2002) His magnum opus, A Theory of Justice (1971), was hailed at the time of its publication as "the most important work in moral philosophy since the end of World War II,"  and is now regarded as "one of the primary texts in political philosophy."  His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism,  takes as its starting point the argument that "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position."  Rawls employs a number of thought experiments — including the famous veil of ignorance — to determine what constitutes a fair agreement in which "everyone is impartially situated as equals," in order to determine principles of social justice.
[21] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it."  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.  No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012
[22] "Take, for instance, article 1st, section 2d, to wit: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."
A diversity of persons are here described — persons bound to service for a term of years, Indians not taxed, and three-fifths of all other persons. Now, we ask, in the name of common sense, can there be an honest doubt that, in States where there are slaves, that they are included in this basis of representation? To us, it is as plain as the sun in the heavens that this clause does, and was intended to mean, that the slave States should enjoy a representation of their human chattels under this Constitution. Beside, the term free, which is generally, though not always, used as the correlative of slave, "all other persons," settles the question forever that slaves are here included."  Frederick Douglass, March 16, 1849 The North Star
[23] The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/woman's rights over a father's/man's rights in Domestic Relation Law
The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com,The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[24] In the Jane Crow / plea bargain era, how does one fight the corrupt and malicious actions of a judge, the dishonesty and denial of exculpable evidence by prosecutors, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" or "a frivolous exparte order of protection" in the Jane Crow family courts under color of law when the deal is controlled and slanted in favor of the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent police state in the modern world.  Plea out now before trial to X years or we go for the maximum X plus 10 years, if not life in prison.  That is not a negotiation; that is an offer you can't refuse.
[25] "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
[26] NYTimes Op-Ed Columnist, "A Choice, Not a Whine" By DAVID BROOKS, Published: July 2, 2012
[27] "The Opportunity Gap" By DAVID BROOKS published the New York Times July 9, 2012
[28]  Incompetence is the most insidious 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.
[29] "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
[30]  Incompetence is the most insidious 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.
[31]  Incompetence is the most insidious 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.
[32]  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.
[33]  "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!!!!!
[34] ""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)
[35] 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)
[36] 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)
[38] Aldous Huxley
[40] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[41] 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.
[42] "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
[43] 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"
[44] 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
[45] 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.
[46] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[47] "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
[48] "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.
[49] 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.
[50] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[52] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[53] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[54] "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.
[55] 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.
[56] 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.
[57] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[58] 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."
[62] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[63] "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"
[65] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[66] 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
[67] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[68] 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.
[69] "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
[71] 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.
[72] 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
[73] "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
[74] "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."
[75]  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.
[76] "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.
[77]  "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
[78] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
[82] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[83] "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