Monday, December 31, 2012

Not every problem is a nail.

Not every problem is a nail.
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]
Monday, December 31, 2012, 10:10:05 AM
I recently read, "How does one celebrate Christmas with the fresh memory of 20 children and 7 adults ruthlessly murdered in Newtown" in a newspaper article.  The old adage, "If all you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail," came to mind.  We have to first acknowledge the real problem and take responsibility for the PROBLEM not the preferred politically-corrected distillation of the problem.
Popular opinion asserts this is a problem that can and should be remedied by existing law.  George Will on ABCNews' 'This Week' (Sunday, December 16, 2012) regarding the Tragedy at the Elementary School reached for the Hammer and expressed "popular opinion" succinctly:
"The problem is, the law can do three things.  It can deter with severe punishments. Of course, we already have lots of deterrents against murder.  They can impede the access to public spaces or to weapons. Or, third, the law can monitor and, in some cases, confine people who meet the profile of these people."
I hate to criticize Mr. Will in absentia, but his hammer and I assert popular opinion is myopic.  His view can be considered as follows, the hammer, the law seen as:
1.    Law can deter with severe punishments.
a.    Of course, we already have lots of deterrents against murder.
2.    Law can impede the access to public spaces or to weapons.
3.    Law can monitor and, in some cases, confine people who meet the profile of these people."
The problem in Newtown was that 28 people died unnecessarily.  One person was allegedly responsible for the deaths of 27 others.  Yes Ryan Lanza was the alleged killer, but he was also a victim.  We messed up.  We alienated him to the outskirts of our socially mandated norm and then left him without the support he needed to cope in OUR society.  We let him slip through our fingers.  We should have seen this coming.  You want to say, his parents could not see it, his teachers could not see; trained professional could have missed it in him.  And to a limited point, I agree.  They DID not see it.  That does not solve the problem.  We have to have the courage to take the responsibility… to solve the problem.  WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT!  We should have helped him! 
"They DID not see it." is not acceptable.  WE are our brother's keeper, we are all in this TOGETHER and we should have seen this coming.  And until we admit this we are going to continue to create victims from our deliberate indifference to rights.[4]
Yes tighter gun control could help, but gun control alone will not solve the problem.  The Ryan Lanzas of the world are very intelligent.  They will not be constrained by gun control nor will they be assimilated into our society via their 2nd Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms."  We the People have to, with Justice as our goal, reach out to them, bring them into our world.  Make them see as viable human beings instead of incoherent villains they apparently see us as. 
We need Gun Control because our rate of accidental (unintentional) firearm-related deaths (0.2/100,000) is higher than Japan's (0.07/100,000) and many other country's TOTAL firearm-related deaths[5]   Arguably the United States of America has the highest firearm-related death rate of any country in the world, if you discount unsettled third world countries and South American countries fighting our failed Drug War for us.  Our Total firearm-related death rate of 10.20 / 100,000 doubles the world average 4.80/ 100,000[6] and is 145 times higher than Japan our economic rival (10.20/.07).
The second Amendment is a relic, an out of date hold over from another time I quote:
    2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is no longer relevant to the conclusion "to keep and bear Arms" in the modern atomic/drone age.  To make the 2nd Amendment relevant in today's world you would have to allow the general public to possess weapons of mass destruction.  Anybody that tries to attack this country or ANY country for that matter is going to have a lot more fire power than can be afforded by bearable arms.  Any credible attempt at warfare is going to be done with an air force probably drones.[7]  And the drone pilots at Whiteman Air Force Base in Knob Noster, Missouri do not use bearable arms in the modern warfare in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq. 
ENOUGH about GUN Control as a solution for this problem!!!
Gun control while a good idea is at best a stopgap measure.
How do we fix the Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes (Aurora, CO - Theater), Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson, Arizona - Supermarket), Anders Behring Breivik (Ut√łya in Tyrifjorden, Buskerud Norwegian - Summer Camp) or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School) PROBLEM? 
We have had the answer since at least 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America.  James Madison gave us the answer in Federalist #51- Justice:
"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."
We took James Madison's assertion to heart.  With our constitution we tried to establish justice and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.[8] 
If Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been the products of a clearly tyrannical government's arbitrary denial of rights we might understand their actions, possibly as self-defense.  But these victims were not victimized by tyrannical government's arbitrary denial of rights or were they? 
Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were deprived of human intimacy.  Human intimacy is every bit as much a prerequisite for life as food and shelter.  I told my son, a precocious 18 year old, that if there was someone in his class that was like Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold he ought to give them a hug.  I assert that an official hugger[9] at the door to all our schools would go further to preventing the next Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold than the NRA's "good guy with a gun" in every school.
Justice demands that we provide bilingual education for foreign speaking children in our schools and adults in our justice system.  Justice demands that we provide special education for children and adults with learning disabilities.  Justice, NOW[10] finally, in America, demands that we provide healthcare for all.  Justice demands that we spend money looking for cures to orphan diseases.  Justice demands that we seek to find out the emotional causes for Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold anti-social behavior.  
We have been over-using the hammer of omnipresent deterrents for centuries, humane deterrents, inhumane deterrents, judicial deterrents, and arbitrary deterrents, with too limited success.  Deterrents are a necessary evil at best in a society seeking to maximize peace and minimize violence.  But deterrents will not dissuade the cunning, often suicidal, Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold anti-social behavior.  We need to be MORE sensitive the causes of their anti-social behavior and help them to reconcile their issues peacefully. 
There is a quote I often think of, "Times have not become more violent.  They have just become more televised."[11]  You can not recreate the past, but I would assert that if you factor in the increase in modern day population density and assume that most if not all of the violence of yesteryear was swept under the rug of history that per capita there are as many Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold today as there were 2,000, 3,000 or 10,000 years ago.  We are not becoming more violent, yes all crimes increase with an increase in the density of population, and yes these types of incidents make for good ratings, but beyond that we are no more or less violent that anytime in our past.  If anything we have become more civilized in the way we kill, a bullet to the head, instead of the dismemberments of our historically verifiable past.
The intrinsic violence of omnipresent deterrents is irreconcilable with the pacification of justice.  We all too often want to back people into a corner with our omnipresent VIOLENCE of deterrents and then seem surprised by the VIOLENT response. 
The Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold affliction is not to be easily fixed.  We always want to use the hammer of deterrents to drive the nail to fix our problems.  But not every social problem can be solved with hammer and nail of deterrents.  You can not deter people into speaking English when all they know do not know anything of english.  You can not deter a person with a learning disability to learn with deterrents.  You can not cure disease with deterrents.  Deterrents will not dissuade the insane self destructive, often suicidal, Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold.
I know you would like to believe that mass murder was always held to be abhorrent in our American Society, but that is blatantly FALSE!  If you look at the perversion files[12] our openly corrupt, malicious and incompetent Supreme Court of the United States of America, they have in our name sanctioned the atrocity mass murder, Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871)[13] and let the perpetrators we convicted with out jury system go free.  Our Supreme Court has sanctioned the pogrom of blacks to deny basic Human Rights, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).[14]  We naively believe that those days are behind us.  We naively believe we have the protection of the laws, the Constitution for the United States as the supreme law of the land. 
But we ARE WRONG!!!!!
We the People[15] have no enforceable rights in this country.  EVERY breath you take is subject to the discretion of the absolutely immune "malicious or corrupt" judges,[16] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [17] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[18] and "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [19] be they malicious, corrupt, dishonest and/or incompetent[20] acting under color of law.  Innocent people have no enforceable rights in this country.  Guilty people are given a free pass, via the exclusionary rule in this country.  But if an innocent person is held on death row ever second of every day for 15 years[21] he has no redress against the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[22] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [23] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[24] and "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [25] be they malicious, corrupt, dishonest and/or incompetent[26] acting under color of law.
I cannot help but feel as Justice Douglas stated in his dissent to the Supreme Court's decision in Sweeney v. Woodall - 344 U.S. 92 (1952) "I rebel at the thought that any human being, Negro or white, should be forced to run a gamut of blood and terror in order to get his constitutional rights."  I have been fighting the malicious, corrupt or incompetent judicial,[27] prosecutorial[28] and enforcement[29] power to even acknowledge the issue with the justice of redress for over 9 years including 411 day of illegal incarceration, two psychological examination and over 5 years of homelessness with clear undisputed proof, in hand of the deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.[30]  There is NO JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Given that ""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."  I ask what would you do if your son, your home and your liberty were all taken from you over repeated (9 years) reckonable[31] timely professional objections of yourself and your attorneys without any access to justice? 
1.    Would you go down the Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold road?  I have to say some would, I know I have considered it.  What do you do if you are denied JUSTICE???? 
2.    Would you go down like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi  and light yourself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like?
3.    Would you start try to start a war? Like Timothy McVey envisioned with his asserted act of war bowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.  McVeigh asserted: "You can't handle the truth! Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?"
4.    Would you resort to my and Einstein's assertion of insanity?  I have repeatedly appealed to the Supreme Court, THREE times, over nine year, seeking justice.  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  Albert Einstein, physicist (1879 - 1955)
I ask YOU, How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[32] 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[33] 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[34] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[35] prosecutorial[36]and enforcement[37] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[38] 

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[39]
This embarrasses the future and the past[40]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[41]  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.[42]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[43] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[44] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[45] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[46]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[47] spell of the concentrated power[48] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[49] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[50] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [51] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[52] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[53]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [54] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[55]

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,[56] 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[57] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[58] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[59] "before out of Court"[60] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[61]
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."   I say it NOW, Monday, December 31, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [62]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[63]

Impeach[64] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[65]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[66] 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,[67]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[68] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[69] 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."[70]
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"[71]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[72] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[73] "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.[74]  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."[75]  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [76]  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [77]  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [78]  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [79]  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)" [80]  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),[81] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [82] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[83] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[84]   The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[85] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!


DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, December 31, 2012, 10:10:05 AM, 2012 06-26-12 Who makes the law REV 01

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
(314) 514-5228



[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi -  Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[4] Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.
[5] List of countries by firearm-related death rate, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.
Country-------- Total firearm-related death rate
 Chile----------------------------- 0.06
 Azerbaijan---------------------- 0.07
 Japan---------------------------- 0.07
 South Korea-------------------- 0.13
 Qatar----------------------------- 0.18
 Mauritius------------------------ 0.19
 Hong Kong--------------------- 0.19
[6] This number is an estimate based on the populations of the reporting countries listed on "List of countries by firearm-related death rate" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[7] "Whiteman lands drone assignment, About 280 to form squadron" "Whiteman Air Force Base has been selected as a ground control station for unmanned Predator drone missions. The base in Knob Noster — about 75 miles southwest of Columbia — was one of two bases selected yesterday for the mission. The other is Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota."  This article was published on page A1 of the Tuesday, June 22, 2010 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune. By T.J. Greaney
[8] The preamble, "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."
[9] I would define "hugger" as a non-judgmental friend some who's job it was to GET to know the kids on personal level, someone that could talk mostly, but HUG if called for.  Our schools today are so intimately sterile that we can do miss a Ryan Lanzas, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold.  These kids FAMILY failed them, their SCHOOLS failed, ORGANIZED RELIGION from a recent by gone era failed them. 
[10] With Obamacare we at least assert healthcare for all.. "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] commonly called Obamacare or the federal health care law, is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, it represents the most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965."
[12] We have not seen anything yet.  Just wait untilwe get lok at the Court Record of the cases our Supreme Court has refused to hear in defense of their self-serving absolute immunity.  There was big news this last week when The Boy Scout's 'perversion files' were made public by an Oregon court, Thursday October 18, 2012.  We have seen over the last few years perversion files from the Catholic Church's priests and now the Boy Scouts.  "Boy Scout Files Give Glimpse Into 20 Years of Sex Abuse" New York Times, By KIRK JOHNSON, Published: Thursday October 18, 2012
[13] "The murder for which the defendants were convicted, and as they now sought to show illegally, had been one of peculiar atrocity. A number of witnesses testified that on a summer evening of 1868 (August 29), towards eleven o'clock, at the cabin of a colored man named Jack Foster there were found the dead bodies of the said Jack, of Sallie Foster his wife, and of Lucy Armstrong, for the murder of whom Blyew and Kennard stood convicted; this person, a blind woman, over ninety years old, and the mother of Mrs. Foster; all persons of color; their bodies yet warm. Lucy Armstrong was wounded in the head; her head cut open as with a broad-axe. Jack Foster and Sallie, his wife, were cut in several places, almost to pieces. Richard Foster a son of Jack, who was in his seventeenth year, was found about two hundred yards from the house of his father, at the house of a Mr. Nichols, whither he had crawled from the house of his father, mortally wounded by an instrument corresponding to one used in the killing of Lucy Armstrong, Jack and Sallie Foster. He died two days afterwards from the effects of his wounds aforesaid, having made a dying declaration tending to fix the crime on Blyew and Kennard. Two young children, girls, one aged ten years and the other thirteen (this last, the Laura Foster above mentioned), asleep in a trundle-bed, escaped, and the latter was a witness on the trial." Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 584 (1871)
[14] The undisputed facts of the case – "On Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen, who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana, courthouse to protect it from the pending Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100-280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night. Three whites were killed. This was in the tense aftermath of months of uncertainty following the disputed gubernatorial election of November 1872, when two parties declared victory at the state and local levels. The election was still unsettled in the spring, and both Republican and Fusionists, who carried Democratic backing, had certified their own slates for the local offices of sheriff (Christopher Columbus Nash) and justice of the peace in Grant Parish, where Colfax is the parish seat. Federal troops reinforced the election of the Republican governor, William Pitt Kellogg." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
[15] "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."   "We the People" wrote the constitution to establish a reckonable  justice based rule of law to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, not an ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may serve personal malice.
[16] 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.
[17] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[19] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[20] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[21] See Supreme Court FIVE's verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[21]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a 1st amendment Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[21] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment 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!!!
[22] 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.
[23] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[25] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[26] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[27] ""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)
[28] 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)
[29] 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)
[30] The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It states:
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...."
Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868.
[31] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[32]  Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption.  As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[33] 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.
[34]  "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!!!!!
[35] ""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)
[36] 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)
[37] 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)
[39] Aldous Huxley
[41] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[42] 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.
[43] "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
[44] 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"
[45] 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
[46] 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.
[47] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[48] "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
[49] "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.
[50] 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.
[51] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[53] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[54] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[55] "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.
[56] 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.
[57] 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.
[58] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[59] 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."
[63] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[64] "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"
[66] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[67] 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
[68] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[69] 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.
[70] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[71] "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
[73] 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.
[74] 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
[75] "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
[76] "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."
[77]  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.
[78] "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.
[79]  "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
[80] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
[84] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[85] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick published June 5, 2009


--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316