In the United States of America, Absolute Immunity QUASHES Basic Human Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America and Statute Law

In the United States of America, 
Absolute Immunity QUASHES

Basic Human Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America and Statute Law

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]

Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 3:00:52 PM

“The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't”[3]

Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

 In the United States of America Absolute Immunity for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[4] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [5] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[6] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[7]… “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [8] acting under color of law QUASHES[9] Basic Human Rights,[10] The Constitution[11] for the United States of America and Civil/Criminal Statute Law[12] without Civil or Criminal redress of grievances...  to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[13] 

In the United States of America, because of our Supreme Court, there ain’t a dam thing you can do about it!

To hear the Supreme Court tell it the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[14] “intended sub silentio to exempt,”[15] under color of law, "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[16] especially those entrusted with judicial,[17] prosecutorial[18] and enforcement[19] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[20] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice.[21]  It is an incredible,[22] fantastic or delusional scenario?[23] 

Judicial, Prosecutorial and Enforcement power regularly quashes the objective of those that wrote the constitution and We the People who have since the ratification enacted statute law for our own protection with the corrupt, malicious, and incompetent Supreme Court’s self-serving creation of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre

         We the People crossed our finger on a hope and prayer that our Article III, §1 & 2 judiciary were going to be altruistic.  Our fore fathers had lived under the absolute despotism of the royalist King for too long.  We naively believed if you gave like minded men power they would use it altruistically.  And if they didn’t We the People would have the courage to impeach them.  Our Article III, §1 & 2 judiciary has REPEATEDLY proved their despotism and denied their altruistic purpose.  The absolutely immune judiciary gave us the ongoing Jim Crow Era now 145 years later.  One need only read their published precedents in Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883).  In Blyew the Supreme Court sophistry took no issue with MASS MURDER, they asserted that mass murder did not violate the victims life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  In Cruikshank the Supreme Court sophistry took no issue with racially motivated POGROM[24] of the COLFAX MASSACRE, they asserted that a POGROM did not violate any of the victim’s life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  Even though We the People passed into law[25] The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) that guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public accommodations, public transportation, and prohibited exclusion from jury service with the 13^th Amendments (Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865) assertion:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It is critical to note Section 2’s assertion “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,” was general and a part of all the post-Civil War amendments, 13^th, 14^th and 15^th.  The Supreme Court decided the act was unconstitutional with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).  The Supreme Court did this with the full knowledge of Justice Harlan dissenting (October 15, 1883):

"Those who framed it (The Civil Rights Act of 1875) were not ignorant of the discussion, covering many years of our country's history, as to the constitutional power of Congress to enact the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1850. When, therefore, it was determined, by a change in the fundamental law, to uproot the institution of slavery wherever it existed in the land and to establish universal freedom, there was a fixed purpose to place the authority of Congress in the premises beyond the possibility of a doubt. Therefore, ex industria,[26] power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation was expressly granted. Legislation for that purpose, my brethren concede, may be direct and primary. But to what specific ends may it be directed? This court has uniformly held that the national government has the power, whether expressly given or not, to secure and protect rights conferred or guaranteed by the Constitution. United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. That doctrine ought not now to be abandoned when the inquiry is not as to an implied power to protect the master's rights, but what may Congress, under powers expressly granted, do for the protection of freedom and the rights necessarily inhering in a state of freedom."

The Supreme Court clearly knows better.  I quote the highly regarded, revered and unquestionably vindicated, dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833 –1911) in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883):

“The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.

"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."[27]

Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.” MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

With the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) the Supreme Court created 100 years of the most severe criminally corrupt human right’s abuses ever known to a civilization purporting all men are created equal.[28]  Just imagine if the intent of We the People as specifically addressed and enacted in The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335)[29] on March 1, 1875 had been enforced. 

The Act guaranteed that every person, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a civil or criminal penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison.

However, the law was rarely enforced, especially after the 1876 presidential election and withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Finally, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.

Many of the 1875 Act's provisions were later enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, this time using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce There NEVER would have need to be a civil rights movement, No RACE RIOTS, NO AFIRMATIVE ACITON, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, would never have been necessary.

Clearly the assertion of absolute immunity violates the “sense and reason”[30]  of the constitutional prohibition of titles of nobility.  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." 

For timely “sense and reason of the law” I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, May 28, 1788 as a further timely clarification of the “sense and reason” of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. 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 assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628[31] 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 of immunity - being above the law?  Did Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Furthermore the Supreme Court feels that they make the law not “We the People.”  The Supreme Court still asserts that the laws “We the People” as represented by BOTH houses of congress, as enforcement measure for the Civil Rights post Civil War enacted into law, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866[32] and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871,[33] over the specific expressed objections to judicial, legislative and ministerial officer’s liability of President Johnson’s Veto,[34] as the reckonable[35] supreme FEDERAL Law of the Land,[36] “intended sub silentio to exempt”[37] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[38] especially those entrusted with judicial,[39] prosecutorial[40] and enforcement[41] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[42] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice.[43]  How can the Supreme assert for itself and others, absolute immunity when clearly “sense and reason of the law” was so an explicate over ride of a presidential veto.  The intent of , the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866[44] and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871,[45] was clearly to hold “Every person”[46] criminally liable for constitutionally secured rights and “Whoever”[47] civilly liable for constitutional secured rights. 

The Supreme Court in 1967 at the height of the Civil Rights Movement re-confirmed with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Judges were not bound by constitutional or statute law.  ANOTHER incredible,[48] fantastic or delusional scenario[49] from our criminal, malicious, corrupt and incompetent would be Supreme Court. 

TODAY the Supreme Court with Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 reaffirms Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967) absolute immunity “"is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."”  How does the “independence and without fear of consequences” benefit We the People, when Judicial action incompetently, maliciously or corruptly denies basic Human Rights?   

I quote Mr. Thompson’s frustration about the Supreme Court’s ruling in his case, Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571.

“If I’d spilled hot coffee on myself, I could have sued the person who served me the coffee,” he said. “But I can’t sue the prosecutors who nearly murdered me.”[50]

It is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We hold a “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.”[51]  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [52]  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [53]  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [54]  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [55]  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)” [56]  and compensate the victims?

The Jane Crow Era,[59] “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.”

A 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,[60] 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… It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."[61] 

The innocent victim whose children have been kidnapped whose entire life’s possessions have been stolen has no recourse for redress of grievances.  It is the act of a Judge.  Black Robed Judges can do no wrong in the Royalist American version of the justice system.  Just ask the Kings, the Supreme Court[62] of the United States of America.  "Immunity is given to crime,[63] and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress."[64] "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical[65] to the impartial administration of law and equity."[66]

The Plea Bargain Era, “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000.”[67]  I refuse to believe our Judicial Process is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world.  With the ubiquitous use of the plea bargain, innocent victims are offered little hope to clear their names against a stacked deck before the evidence is even revealed, “Either you plea out before trial or we go for the MAXIMUM!”  Or take your chance against ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY of the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[68] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [69] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[70] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[71]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [72] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[73]

Our Royalist Judicial Process has been allowed to run amuck unchecked for TOOO long.  We have no IDEA.  It scares me to think how many INNOCENT people may currently be incarcerated that have been denied their constitutional rights.  Rights that would have cleared their name, denied by immune CRIMINAL[74] attorneys persecuting innocent victims, not prosecuting, in our justice system, or wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[75] 

“Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin’s gulags.”[76]  “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.”[77]  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  It scares me to think how many men have been emotionally, financially and physically torn from their own flash and blood in the Jane Crow era.   I REFUSE to believe that our criminal Justice system is 5 times better!!!!  I am FORCED by the PRECEDENT of personal experience to think that 4 out of 5 of the current persons incarcerated in American prisons today as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have likely had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Exclusionary Rule Era, to further their cause of a Royalist Justice system, the Supreme Court has created The Exclusionary Rule to cover up their crimes at the expense of We the People.  The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process[78] can do no wrong.  The Royalist Judicial Process in America would prefer to let known criminals go free rather that accept criminal and civil responsibility for their criminal actions against our civil rights, under color of law.[79]  They set up a royalist system of deterrents that allow criminals acting under color of law to act without personal regard to We the People’s civil rights; We the People are forced to cover up the Judicial Process’s criminal actions by accepting the KNOWN criminal back into our midst.  It is INSANITY!!!!   The Exclusionary Rule is compensation to the criminal for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[80]

As verified in Bivens, “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.”[81]

“We the People” have to take back the unchecked power to fabricate self-serving Judge made law out of “sophistry.”  The Judiciary is and has been criminally[82] using their “sophistry” to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the establishment of Justice,[83] We the People[84] sought for “ourselves and our Posterity.”

“We the People” do not have the substantive right to Justice between the Government and the People that instigated the Declaration of Independence’s repeated petitions for redress.  “We the People” do not have the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment. 

“We the People” are at the mercy of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[85] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [86] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[87] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[88]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [89] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[90]  They can deprive “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[91] under color of law but outside Due Process of law and there is nothing “We the People” can do about it short of War. 

I have referenced “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,” in several of my papers.  I do so only because the admittedly fictionalized facts of the case in “To Kill a Mocking Bird” are generally known but not without standing.  If the Sheriff Tate had investigated the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the racially motivated baseless accusation against a crippled man of good character that they were.  How could the crippled Tom Robinson been able to do the things he was accused of?  If Horace Gilmer the prosecuting attorney had actually looked at the evidence Atticus presented instead of blindly pushing the perjured racially biased testimony of the Ewels he would have offered to dismiss the charges.  If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic courage that our judiciary[92] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious[93] or calumnious[94] so as not to offend the Ends of Justice that should have been his soul motivation. 

Tom Robinson was convicted because of the deliberate indifference to his right to justice under fair Due Process of law as required and asserted in the Constitution for the United States of America – the preamble to establish justice, Article III, §1 & 2, Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph and the 14^th Amendment. 

Atticus should not have had to say a word, just present the evidence of a crippled since childhood man.  The Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are all representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servants of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. The Sherriff and the Prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much they’re duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. (paraphrased slightly from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935))  Judges by definition in our system are there to altruistically enforce fair Due Process of law on the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the defendant as necessary to the ends of justice.[95]

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[96] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[97] prosecutorial[98]and enforcement[99] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[100] 

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[101] 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[102] 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[103] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[104] prosecutorial[105]and enforcement[106] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[107] 

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[108]

This embarrasses the future and the past[109]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[110]  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.[111]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute immunity”[112] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[113] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”[114] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[115]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[116] spell of the concentrated power[117] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[118] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[119] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [120] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[121] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[122]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [123] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[124]

See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama

and

#12-2435 Jeep v Government of the United States of America

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,[125] 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[126] grant of “Absolute Immunity,”[127] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an “unlawful Conspiracy”[128] “before out of Court”[129] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[130]

“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, Wednesday, January 30, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [131]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[132]. 

Impeach[133] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[134]

for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[135] 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,[136]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[137] with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment[138] 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!!!

Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)

Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" 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)

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 and / or The shifting wind : the Supreme Court and civil rights from Reconstruction to Brown by John R. Howard.  “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.”[139] “Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin’s gulags.”[140]

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"[141]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[142] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,”[143] “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.[144]  I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations.  I ask you to review 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case Jeep v Government of the United States of America 12-2435, Jeep v Obama 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.”[145]  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [146]  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [147]  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [148]  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [149]  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)” [150]  and compensate the victims?

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[151] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [152] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[153] and myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[154]   The fact that “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners”[155] PROVES “We the People” have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidence as posted on this blog 

Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 3:00:52 PM

David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com

(314) 514-5228

---

[1] “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush’s false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi -  Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.

[2] “Damages” By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added

[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[4] 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.

[5] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[6] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[7] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”

[9] quashes - verb: - Reject as invalid, esp. by legal procedure: "his conviction was quashed on appeal".

[10] "The International Covenant on Civil and  Political Rights" adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States  on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. "Each State Party  to the present Covenant undertakes: (a)  To ensure that any person whose  rights or freedoms as herein recognized  are violated shall have  an effective remedy, notwithstanding  that the violation has  been committed by persons  acting in an official  capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."

[11] The Supremacy clause, Article VI § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

[12]  Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."

[13] “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.

[14] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America

[15] "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!!!!!

[16] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[17] ""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 (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[18] 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)

[19] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)

[20]  "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution."  Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).   

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America

[21] The distortion of Justice in the US of A today that denies Civility for the sake of hubris is CORRUPTION personified.  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 4.75 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.

[22] "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!!!!!

[23] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[24] po·grom [puh-gruhm, -grom, poh-] an organized massacre, especially of Jews.

Origin: 1880–85;  (< Yiddish ) < Russian pogróm  literally, destruction, devastation (of a town, country, etc., as in war), noun derivative of pogromít’,  equivalent to po-  perfective prefix + gromít’  to destroy, devastate, derivative of grom  thunder

[25] The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875.

The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison.

However, the law was rarely enforced, especially after the 1876 presidential election and withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Finally, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.

[26] With contrivance or deliberation; designedly; on purpose. Seel Kent,Comm. 318; Martin v. Hunter, 1 r Wheat. 334, 4 L. Ed. 97.

[27] Clearly the assertion of absolute immunity violates the constitutional prohibition of titles of nobility. 

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 assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute 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 Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[28] The quotation from the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal" has been called an "immortal declaration” and "perhaps" the single phrase of the United States Revolutionary period with the most grand "continuing importance". See also the 14^th Amendment’s assurance of “equal protection of the laws’ as reinforcement

[29] The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1875.

[30] "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."  MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[31] “Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and ministers shall serve you according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender the honor of your Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom.”  The Petition of Right is a major English constitutional document that sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing. Passed on 7 June 1628, the Petition contains restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced billeting of soldiers, imprisonment without cause, and restricts the use of martial law e.g., immunity from the established rule of law.

[32] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Whoever” criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[33] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Every person” civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[34] It is malicious, corrupt and incompetent to assert ANY, much less absolute, immunity when both The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and The Civil Rights Act of 1871 were passed with the full knowledge of President Andrew Johnson's Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866, To the Senate of the United States:

"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.…"

[35] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (ibid.)

[36] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America. 

[37] "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!!!!!

[38] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[39] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution."  Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).  

The Supreme Court precedent has empowered itself and the rest of the judiciary by saying ""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 (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[40] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[41] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[42] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution."  Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).  

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America

[43] 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 4.75 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.

[44] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Whoever” criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[45] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Every person” civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[46] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Whoever” criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[47] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Every person” civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[48] "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!!!!!

[49] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[50] “$14 Million Jury Award to Ex-Inmate Is Dismissed” By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: March 29, 2011

[51] “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

[52] “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.”

[53]  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.

[54] “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.

[55]  “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

[56] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

[57]  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.

[58]  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.

[59] The “Jane Crow” Era started with the over funded witch hunt “The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 1974 P.L. 93-247 (CAPTA).

[60] In psychology, the term refers to the inability to maintain defense mechanisms in response to stress, resulting in personality disturbance or psychological imbalance.  In times of extreme inescapable stress the psyche shuts down as its only defensive mechanism.

[61] “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, “Hitting below the belt” 10/25/99, 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.

[62] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), high standards of proof; I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.

[63] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[64] DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871

[65] Amendment 1, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[66] DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871

[67] "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

[68] 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.

[69] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[70] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[71] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[72] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”

[73] “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.

[74] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[75] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "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."

[76] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz2AXMzsJAs

[77] “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

[78] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)

[79] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[80] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[81] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410

[82] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[83] Justice is the end of government, it is end of the civilized society

[84] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788

[85] 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.

[86] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[87] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[88] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[89] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”

[90] “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.

[91] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[92] Our Federal Judiciary, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” so as to empower them to answer to Justice ALONE. 

[93] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "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," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability.  "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,

[94] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability.  "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,

[95] “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.”

[96]  “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!!!!!

[97] ""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)

[98] 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)

[99] 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)

[100] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[101]  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.

[102] 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.

[103]  “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!!!!!

[104] ""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 (HOW does the potential denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence (HOW do the judges justify the denial of the Supreme Law land there WERE TO BE BOND BY?) 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)

[105] 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)

[106] 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)

[107] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[108] Aldous Huxley

[109] “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)

[110] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[111] 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.

[112] “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

[113] 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”

[114] 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. 

[115] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[116] 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!!!!!!!!!!

[117] "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

[118] “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.

[119] 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.

[120] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[121] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[122] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[123] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”

[124] “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.

[125] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[126] 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.

[127] “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

[128] 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.”

[129] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[130] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[131] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)

[132] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394

[133] “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”

[134] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[135] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity

[136] 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

[137] 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

[138] 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.

[139] “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

[140] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz2AXMzsJAs

[141] “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

[142] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[143] 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.

[144] 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

[145] “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

[146] “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.”

[147]  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.

[148] “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.

[149]  “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

[150] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

[151] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[152] Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145

[153] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011

[154] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211

[155] “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