“If
you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he
won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down
on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908 – 1973)
The Tea Party
and
The Poor White Southerner
Washington
Post
by ,
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,
August 27, 2012, 10:01:53 AM
Connick,
District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
The Tea Party and The Poor White Southerner, post-civil war, have a lot in common. Both were lead down the proverbial garden path by elitist asserting trickle down economics. Trickle Down associative economics does not work. No one, The elite White Southerner, nor Rupert Murdoch's FOX News,[4] nor the Koch Brothers, nor Bain Capital, are going to share, they AVOID taxes at every turn. The Poor White Southerner post-civil war, had the excuse of naiveté possibly? The Tea Party of TODAY has no such excuse! The Tea Party has had the prior immediate experience of Ronald Reagan's and George W. Bush's trickle down economics.
The Poor White Southerner, post-civil war, was possibly naively duped into believing that the recently emancipated African Americans, 39% of the population, were scientifically inferior.
This corrupt perception was the confluence of two factors, first the vestiges of commercial corruption of constitutional civil rights[5] at the hand of The Supreme Court of the United States and Southern Elites and secondly the incompetently asserted unscientific sociological theories in "The Principles of Biology" (1864) of Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903).[6] "The Principles of Biology" was a corrupt incompetent sociological distortion of Charles Darwin's scientific biological assertions in "On the Origin of Species" (1859). You cannot create trustworthy sociological science from biological science, the systems, based on the magnitude of time involved are too different.
The ongoing commercial corruption of constitutional civil rights was a source of PROFIT, albeit myopic, for the Southern elites. Keeping the recently emancipated African Americans, 39% of the population, as an under class maintained a ready supply of cheap farm labor but also inhibited the south's development. Keeping the recently emancipated African Americans, 39% of the population, as an uneducated dependent class was, when viewed in a larger perspective, counterproductive to the advancement and modernization of Southern Society that the Northern States were experiencing.
"The Principles of Biology" (1864), Herbert Spencer's seemingly serious assertions were enthusiastically promoted without scientific foundation by the Southern Elites and their newly empowered allies Northern Elite Entrepreneurs, e.g., Andrew Carnegie (1835 – 1919), John Davison Rockefeller (1839 – 1937) and etc., to justify their otherwise unjustified incongruent social, political and financial influence. This is where The Poor White Southerner may have been duped? Eventually, prior to his death, Herbert Spencer's unscientific sociological assertions were discarded for the naturalistic fallacy that they intrinsically were.
This confluence of these two fallacies, myopic source of profit and "The Principles of Biology" (1864), Herbert Spencer were enormously costly for the South, post-civil war. It put Southern Society into and economic and cultural tailspin, that now even 151 year later it has still to recover from. To walk away without learning from the mistake would force us to again, via the Tea party, to fall into a similar TRAP. The cost to The South, post-civil war, accrued from two sources, continued forced enslavement and loss of production of the recently emancipated African Americans.
Anytime you, without justification, attempt to enslave and or control an otherwise free individual it costs money. Yes society has a justifiable profit, right and obligation to enslave and or control criminals. But the recently emancipated African Americans were not criminals. The corrupt absolutely immune judicial system allowed recently emancipated African Americans to be treated, at an enormous financial and cultural cost, as criminals.
Neither the Southern Elites or The Poor White Southerner, post-civil war would see it but the continued enslavement of the recently emancipated African Americans cut into their productivity potential. If free markets have established any unassailable truths, slavery is NOT financially or morally justifiable.
That being said, the Tea Party is being lead down the garden path of fixed money supply, balanced budgets and unrestrained libertarianism.
A fixed money supply is always a good thing, the first Tea Party fallacy. Admittedly on the surface at first glance, yes, a fixed money supply seems not only a good thing but a requirement. For money to retain its value the supply or creation of money has to be fixed. If you allow the unrestricted creation of money, money via inflation losses it value. Seems Simple enough?
I would attack a fixed money supply on two obligatory fronts. A fixed money supply ASSURES the accumulation of wealth by the LUCKY few that happen to stumble upon a means of wealth creation that fills a demand. In the classic sense; this is the proverbial "better mouse trap."
The accumulation of wealth while in the short run can be considered a reward for effort, in the long run creates an impediment to future growth. When wealth starts to accumulate under a dictatorship, a family or even an oligarchy you start to get things like The Egyptian Pyramids, The Palace of Versailles, The Taj Mahal or the Biltmore estate.[7] While those look good from a historical perspective, they did very little for the VIRTUAL SLAVES that built them!
Trying to fix the money supply to the scarcity of a commodity creates deflation that benefits the commodity traders at the expense of the economy as a whole. There is a fixed "X" amount of gold in circulation. Demand is constantly on the rise in a GROWING healthy economy. When the monetary supply is fixed via a commodity, gold, you get DEFLATION. The money supply is fixed, demand is every increasing with at a minimum population and the next new thing. The fixed monetary supply, a commodity, increases in value as all other commodities are forced to deflate around it.
As a counter point to a fixed money supply, two examples of POSITIVE growth from a NON-fixed monetary policy, Civil War America while not achieving its stated goal, the elimination of slavery, it did in fact open the door to the inevitable elimination of slavery and the western nations prior to the Cold War were able to redistribute wealth via the use of monetary policy. Abraham Lincoln attempted to emancipate the slaves while financing the civil war with the "Greenbacks." More immediatly as relates to the Cold War Franklin Roosevelt financed the New Deal by printing money. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese people, the proverbial communist, had access to monetary policy to do the same thing. The communist were forced into Civil War to accomplish what western countries had already done peacefully democratically redistributing the wealth of the monarchies and the pre-depression era robber barons via monetary policy.
Balanced Budgets as asserted by the second Tea Party agenda item are asserted as a part of FIXED money supply monetary policy. When ever I consider monetary policy I can not help to remember a quote attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812) at the inception of our country:
"Give me control of a nation's money supply,
and I care not who makes its laws.?
You can not allow the HAVES to sit on their wealth in ever accruing perpetuity. They will manipulate the masses via the media,[8] make the laws to suit their interest and then build monuments to themselves, The Egyptian Pyramids, The Palace of Versailles, The Taj Mahal or the Biltmore estate.
Unrestrained libertarianism, as asserted by the third Tea Party agenda item, I agree with the Tea Party as alleged on this point. Our definition of unrestrained libertarianism is the problem. I define unrestrained libertarianism as John Rawls defined in his "A Theory of Justice" with The First Principle of Justice:
" First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others."[9]
He went further to define the basic liberties of citizens as, political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest. This principal while seemingly compliant with We the People's interpretation of liberty has NEVER even been closely accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The Supreme Court of United States of America has set themselves up as absolutely immune corrupt criminal dictators of individual liberty.
One need only look at current and past rulings from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, over the expressed substantive intent of the XIV and XV Amendment,[10] post Civil War ruled that individuals with dubious majorities in the States have the political liberty to regulate individual political liberty to vote of others, Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), literacy test, and Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903), pole tax. This not libertarian!
While in almost the same breath the Supreme Court in Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) created, out of thin air, without any definitive constitutional reference an individual's "liberty of contract," and said that the individuals political liberty to vote as a majority in the State has no right to infringe the out of thin air judicial creation of "liberty of contract." In essence a state can regulate the political liberty to vote in essence nullifying democracy and in the same breath they again nullify the political liberty to vote that attempts to make law for child labor, minimum wage or the regulation of prices so as to eliminate the strangle hold of corruption and monopolies.
In modern times there are those on the Supreme Court that maintain that the political liberty to vote on regulating 14% of the nation's commerce, health care, via our representatives in the Whitehouse and Congress, is not addressed by congress's enumerated necessary and proper[11] power to regulate Commerce among the several States[12] and in the same virtual breath they can assert that the right to sue our government in the respectful form of a petition[13] for a redress of a justifiable grievance, for the conceded denial[14] of Due Process of Law that has resulted in the deprivation of life, liberty or property, is without 1st and 7th Amendment remedy.[15]
IT IS AN INCREDIBLE[16] FANTASTIC OR DELUSIONAL
The Tea Party is a contrivance of FOX News. Take FOX News out of the mix and the Tea Party withers like every one of Ron Paul's presidential campaigns. At the inception of the Tea Party, FOX News was grasping at straws for ratings to promote their brand of YELLOW JOURNALISM. Where was the Tea Party, prior to FOX News's 2008 emotional fanatical and disproportionate public support? It did not exist! Yes Ron Paul as a part of his 2nd failed presidential campaign had a "Boston Tea Party 07" on December 16, 2007. FOX News kicked up quite a ruckus in the 2010 mid term elections, but the untempered libertarian premise will be exposed for the EVIL that it is.
I compare the Tea Party to The Poor White Southern post civil war. The Poor White Southern blindly went along with the rich White Racist's Jim Crow re-enslavement of the newly emancipated African Americans. It sounded like a good deal to the Poor White Southerner just as FOX News's Libertarianism does today for the Tea Party. The poor white southerner got to feel like they were better than the African Americans. What the Poor White Southerner could not see was that to diminish anyone's rights arbitrarily and without reason is to diminish EVERYONE'S rights. The Tea Party acolytes today similarly feel like their association with Rupert Murdoch's FOX News,[17] the Koch Brothers, the Bain Capital, is a good thing and assert they are better than the Big Inflationary Government, Unbalanced Budget, crazy liberals trying to defeat the libertarianism of the Supreme Court of the United States as expressed by the majority of the court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) and the dissenting minority in Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, 132 S. Ct. 1618 (2012).
What the Poor White Southerner could not see was that the embrace of Jim Crow ensnared the Poor White Southerner into survival of the fittest where the oligarchy of the Rich White Southerners held ALL THE CARDS!!!! Jim Crow did absolutely NOTHING for the Poor White Southerner!! While the Rich White Southerners had all the political power and economic power; limited as it was by its inherent EVIL.[18] The same can be said of the Tea Party, the Gold Standard, balanced budgets and an oligarchy's narrow self-centered reading of the constitution empowers the rich, the judicial oligarchy.
The Communist Movement was already well underway at the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 prior to the American Civil War (1861-1865). The failure of Adam Smith's vision of an invisible hand regulating markets for the good of all was all ready known to be a fact. The Progressive movement stepped into to DEMOCRATICALLY restrain previously unrestrained free markets with The Sherman Antitrust Act's (1890).
The GOLD standard is arbitrary inhibition for GROWTH. A Balanced Budget eliminates the potential for redistribution of capital via inflation. Libertarian as defined by the current CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court majority is not LIBERTARIAN it is biased.
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[19] 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[20] 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[21] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[22] prosecutorial[23]and enforcement[24] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[25]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[26]
This embarrasses the future and the past[27]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[28] 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.[29]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[30] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[31] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[32] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[33]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[34] spell of the concentrated power[35] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[36] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[37] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [38] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[39] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[40]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [41] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[42]
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,[43] 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[44] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[45] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[46] "before out of Court"[47] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[48]
"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, August 27, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [49] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[50].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[53] 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,[54]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[55] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[56] 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.
Anyone that questions this should read "INHERENTLY UNEQUAL, The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903" by Lawrence Goldstone.
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"[57]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[58] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[59] "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.[60] 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."[61] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [62] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [63] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [64] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [65] 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)" [66] 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),[67] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [68] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[69] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[70] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[71] 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, August 27, 2012, 10:01:53 AM, 2012 06-26-12 Who makes the law REV 01
[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] A leaked memo from Fox News vice president Bill Sammon to the News staff during the height of the debate over health care reform in the United States has been cited as an example of the pro-Republican party bias of Fox News. His memo asked the staff to "use the term 'government-run health insurance,' or, when brevity is a concern, 'government option,' whenever possible." This memo was sent shortly after Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised Sean Hannity on his Fox show that: "If you call it a public option, the American people are split," he explained. "If you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it." Leaked Fox News Memo Reveals News Division Told To Echo GOP Talking Point, Business Insider, December 9, 2010
[5] "Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903" by Lawrence Goldstone
[6] Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era. Spencer is best known for coining the concept "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
[7] 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.
[8] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.
[9] # John Rawls, "A Theory of Justice" p.53 revised edition; p.60 old 1971 first edition
[10] AMENDMENT XIV Section 2., "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
AMENDMENT XV, Section 1., The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
[11] Constitution for the United States of America, Section. 8., The Congress shall have Power To - Item 17. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
[12] Constitution for the United States of America, Section. 8., The Congress shall have Power To - Item 2. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
[13] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803).
[15] 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.
[16] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[17] A leaked memo from Fox News vice president Bill Sammon to the News staff during the height of the debate over health care reform in the United States has been cited as an example of the pro-Republican party bias of Fox News. His memo asked the staff to "use the term 'government-run health insurance,' or, when brevity is a concern, 'government option,' whenever possible." This memo was sent shortly after Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised Sean Hannity on his Fox show that: "If you call it a public option, the American people are split," he explained. "If you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it." Leaked Fox News Memo Reveals News Division Told To Echo GOP Talking Point, Business Insider, December 9, 2010
[18] GOOD will ALWAYS prevail over EVIL by definition!!!
[19] 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 The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[20] 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 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.
[21] "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!!!!!
[22] ""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)
[23] 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)
[24] 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)
[26] Aldous Huxley
[27] "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)
[28] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[29] 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.
[30] "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
[31] 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"
[32] 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.
[33] 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.
[34] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[35] "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
[36] "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.
[37] 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.
[38] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[39] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[40] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[41] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[42] "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.
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] "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
[46] 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."
[50] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[51] "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"
[53] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[54] 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
[55] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[56] 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.
[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
[59] 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.
[60] 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
[61] "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
[62] "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."
[63] 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.
[64] "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.
[65] "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
[70] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[71] "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
