Trust
WHO?
The invisible hand
will take care of us ALL!
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
Thursday,
November 01, 2012, 4:17:59
PM
Who can you trust if not the
parish priest?[4] Who can you trust if not a Scoutmaster that
spends his free time with kids?[5] It is definitely more trouble than it is
worth to be subjecting these good and faithful men to the potential for “vexatious
actions”[6]
and “continual calumniations.”[7]
And by the same logic we should
NEVER EVER distrust our “malicious or corrupt” judges,[8] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor,
[9]
the “knowingly false
testimony by police officers"[10]
or all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[11]
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process” [12]
acting under color of law.
Point in fact lets just let it
all go to hell in a hand basket. We do
not need civilization or the rule of law; we need to go back the law of jungle,
survival of the fittest, as described by Adam Smith in 1776 with the Wealth of
Nations. The invisible hand will take
care of us ALL!!!!!!
I mean presidential candidates
can lie through their teeth, “What Mr. Romney cannot admit is that our current automobile
industry is a direct result of the government investment he would have
rejected. It’s bad enough to be wrong on
the policy. It takes an especially dishonest candidate to simply turn up the
volume on a lie and keep repeating it.”
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[13]
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[14] 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[15] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially
those tasked with judicial,[16] prosecutorial[17]and enforcement[18] power from its paramount binding authority is
an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[19]
This embarrasses the future and the past[21]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country
i.e., no titles of nobility.[22] 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.[23]
How can the Supreme
Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute
immunity”[24] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid”[25] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America?”[26] by DENYING the constitutional
assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th
Amendment Justice, law and equity?[27]
We the People have
fallen under the despotic[28] spell of the concentrated power[29]
in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[30]
from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[31] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor,
[32]
the “knowingly false
testimony by police officers"[33] and
“all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[34])
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process” [35]
acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[36]
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
11-8211
Jeep v. Obama
and
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,[37] 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[38]
grant of “Absolute
Immunity,”[39] by
and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful
Conspiracy”[40] “before out of Court”[41]
to obfuscate “false
and malicious Persecutions.”[42]
“Immunity is given to crime,
and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of
effective redress.” “The courts are in many instances under the control of
those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.” I say it NOW, Thursday, November 01,
2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.
[43] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally
in 1871[44].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice[47] 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,[48]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging
a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress
of grievances,[49] with their deprivation of substantive 7th
Amendment[50] 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 and / or The
shifting wind : the Supreme Court and civil rights from Reconstruction to Brown
by John R. Howard. “Six million
people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin’s
gulags.”[51]
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"[52]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America”[53] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The
Denial of Due Process,”[54] “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.[55] 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.”[56]
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
[57]
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
[58]
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
[59]
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
[60]
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)” [61]
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),[62] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145),
[63] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[64] and
myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[65] The
fact that “With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported
prisoners”[66] PROVES
“We the People” have NO ENFORCEABLE
RIGHTS IN America
today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday,
November 01, 2012, 4:17:59 PM, 2012 11-01-12 Trust REV 00
[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]
Catholic sex abuse cases - The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of
convictions, trials and investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse
crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of Roman Catholic orders
against children as young as 3 years old with the majority between the ages of
11 and 14. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[5]
Boy Scout ‘perversion files’ released, “Thousands of pages of once-private
records detailing sex-abuse allegations within the Boy Scouts of America from
the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s were made public by an Oregon court Thursday,
including internal reports of alleged child molestations by more than 1,200
scoutmasters and other adult volunteers nationwide.” washingtonpost.com©
1996-2012 The Washington Post
[8]
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.
[9]
Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[10]
Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[11]
Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant
of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[12]
Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15] “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!!!!!
[16]
""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)
[17]
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)
[18]
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)
[20]
Aldous Huxley
[21]
“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)
[22]
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[23]
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.
[24]
“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
[25]
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”
[26]
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.
[27]
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.
[28]
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!!!!!!!!!!
[29]
"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
[30]
“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.
[31]
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.
[32]
Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[33]
Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[34]
Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant
of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[35]
Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[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]
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.
[38]
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.
[39]
“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
[40]
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.”
[44]
Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[45]
“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”
[47]
The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[48]
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
[49]
1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no
law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”
[50]
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.
[51]
The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The
New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[52]
“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
[54]
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.
[55]
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
[56]
“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
[57]
“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.”
[58]
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.
[59]
“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.
[60]
“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
[65] See also USCA8
07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
07-11115&11-8211
[66]
“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
