The Supreme Court
Would have you believe that your RIGHTS were beyond your ability to reckon.[1]
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
Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 12:06:24 PM
The Supreme Court would have you believe that your RIGHTS were beyond your ability to reckon. [5] And if that be the case, your rights are of no value because they are, by you, unenforceable. Our Constitution relies inexorably on the reciprocity of the Jury System in both criminal[6] and civil cases[7]
It has been reaffirmed countless times that the essence of Basic Inalienable Human Rights, the protection of the law, is that it is a personal one, [8] and does not depend upon the number of persons affected, and any individual who is denied, Basic Inalienable Human Rights, without Due Process of Law, under authority of the state may properly complain that their Basic Inalienable Human Rights have been denied, damage has occurred and a REMEDY[9] should be available.[10] The protection of the law[11] is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected.[12] Any individual who is deprived of any reckonable[13] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law[14] of the land has been damaged and has civil recourse under 1st and 7th Amendment[15] to a "a redress of grievances."
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[16] 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[17] 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[18] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[19] prosecutorial[20]and enforcement[21] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[22]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[23]
This embarrasses the future and the past[24]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[25] 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.[26]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[27] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[28] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[29] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[30]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[31] spell of the concentrated power[32] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[33] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[34] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [35] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[36] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[37]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [38] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[39]
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,[40] 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[41] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[42] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[43] "before out of Court"[44] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[45]
"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, Tuesday, December 18, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [46] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[47].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[50] 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,[51]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[52] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[53] 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."[54]
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"[55]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[56] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[57] "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.[58] 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."[59] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [60] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [61] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [62] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [63] 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)" [64] 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),[65] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [66] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[67] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[68] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[69] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 12:06:24 PM, 2012 06-26-12 Who makes the law REV 01
Gail Johnson, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Reply to letters dated September 21, 2012, October 3, 2012 and Phone call of the morning of Monday, December 17, 2012 - return of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435, AGAIN!!!!!!
Dear People,
I realize this is a war of attrition, but the last word is what we both seek. If nine years of deprivation, 411 days of illegal incarceration and 5 years of homelessness do not prove the gravitas of my intent nothing will. You would prefer me to just fade away into the ether and never breathe a word about my loss. That AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
I sent my ORIGINAL Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to your office dated Friday, September 14, 2012.[70] It was delivered to your office First-Class Certified Mail Tuesday, September 18, 2012. I received a letter from Ms. S. Elliot's of your office dated Friday, September 21, 2012. I responded to Ms. S. Elliot's letter, First-Class Certified Mail, Wednesday, September 26, 2012.[71] I received your, Gail Johnson's, letter dated Wednesday, October 03, 2012 acknowledging all this. I responded to your, Gail Johnson, letter via First-Class Certified Mail Monday, October 15, 2012.[72] In that I had not received anything I sent a letter addressed to:
Gail Johnson/S. Elliot, Clerk of the Court
c/o Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
as a follow-up to my letter dated Monday, October 15, 2012 on Friday November 09, 2012 and delivered First-Class Certified Mail[73] to your office November 15, 2012, 11:19 am.
Additionally I sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, street addressed as above, dated Friday, November 30, 2012 delivered, First-Class Certified Mail, Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:01am[74] following up on all prior communication in this regard.
I left several messages on Gail Johnson's phone 12/05/12 2:30 PM CST, 12/07/12 1:57PM CST, 12/07/12 2:30PM CST and 12/13/12 2:40PM CST (S. Elliot 12/04/12 12.27PM CST and 12/07/12 2:00PM CST). This morning 12/17/12 8:45AM CST, I finally called and got Ms. Johnson on the phone.
Now I responded to all Ms. Elliot's and Ms. Johnson's concerns in my First-Class Certified Mail delivered to your office 10/02/12 10:51am and 10/22/12 11:05am additionally my follow up letters as addressed above were delivered via First-Class Certified Mail 11/15/12 11:19am and 12/05/12 11:01am.
I realize you have no accountability to anyone, you assert the royalty of an unconstitutional title of nobility.[75] NONETHELESS I want to go on record, this is an ongoing[76] personal emergency and has been declared as such since the inception of the issue at the Supreme Court with Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 (See also Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211).
Your corrupt criminal cohorts somehow want to hide behind the shield of the unconstitutional assertion that liability requires "difficult problems of proof" [77] if not an impossibly "stringent standard of fault."[78] Why would We the People even have written or committed to a constitution if the right to an "ex industria, [79] power to enforce"[80] justice and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity were not secured by the inherent reciprocity of 1st [81]and 7th Amendment[82] de facto re-spondeat superior strict liability?[83] To say that "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice"[84] We the People should accept your shirking on behalf of my government's strict liability and responsibility for the deprivations of any reckonable[85] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law[86] of the land is an incredible,[87] fantastic or delusional scenario![88]
It is only, "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice,"[89] reckonable[90] that the essence of the constitutional right to the protection of the law[91] is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected.[92] Any individual who is deprived of any reckonable[93] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law[94] of the land, under authority of the government, state or federal, may properly complain that his constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities have been deprived.
The fraudulent deprivation of a justifiable "ex industria,[95] power to enforce"[96] my inalienable constitutional right to Due Process of Law[97] precludes any statute of limitations or issue of "vexatious"[98] or "calumnious"[99] actions as I cite in my current petition:
"The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium,[100] and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa[101] as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party[102] to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial[103] or decision[104] of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court." Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken."[105]
For me this personal and has been a personal emergency for the past 9.60 years, 3,502 calendar days, 56,039 waking hours, 3,362,326 waking minutes, or 201,739,553 waking seconds, as of Monday December 17, 2012 11:08:49.12 AM CST.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
enclosure
a. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, (5 pages).
b. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized (7 pages).
c. Revised "A humble pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, (27 pages)"
d. A copy of the follow up letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts dated Friday, November 30, 2012 (4 pages)
e. A copy of the follow up letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thursday, November 08, 2012 (3 pages)
f. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Monday October 15, 2012 (pages 5)
g. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012. (stamped received Oct 3-2012 by the Office of the Clerk Supreme Court US)
h. SPREADSHEET for escalating Damages - Monday December 17, 2012 03:04:46.82 PM ( 1 page)
i. Damages and Injunctive Relief Monday December 17, 2012 03:04:46.82 PM (2 pages)
cc: My Blog - Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 12:05:14 PM
[1] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[2] "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.
[3] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[4] 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
[5] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[6] Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[7] 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.
[8] "It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 162 (1914)
[9] A "remedy" is what you hope to accomplish by filing suit. Remedies allowed under federal civil rights statutes include monetary damages, injunctions (court orders requiring the defendant to do something or to stop doing something), and declaratory relief (a statement by the court that your claim has been investigated and you have been found to be "in the right" and the defendant has been found to be "in the wrong," legally speaking).
[10] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases," he says,
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says,
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))
Sovereign ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY was and IS a figment of the imagination created post Civil War to RE-enslave African Americans. "That is in essence what happened with Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) just post Civil War 1868 & 1871."
[11] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803)) Sovereign immunity does not exist for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law of the land
[12] "It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 162 (1914)
[13] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[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] 1st Amendment, "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."
7th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] "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!!!!!
[19] ""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)
[20] 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)
[21] 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)
[23] Aldous Huxley
[24] "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)
[25] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[26] 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.
[27] "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
[28] 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"
[29] 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.
[30] 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.
[31] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[32] "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
[33] "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.
[34] 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.
[35] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[36] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[37] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[38] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[39] "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.
[40] 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.
[41] 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.
[42] "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
[43] 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."
[48] "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"
[50] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[51] 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
[52] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[53] 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.
[54] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[55] "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
[57] 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.
[58] 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
[59] "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
[60] "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."
[61] 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.
[62] "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.
[63] "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
[68] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[69] "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
[70] Stamped received by the OFFICEOF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT U.S. dated Sep 19 2012
Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4416 3690
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 09/18/12 10:57am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 09/18/12 10:52am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 09/18/12 10:38am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 3:28pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 1:38pm
[71] Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4421 2589
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/02/12 10:51am
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 10/02/12 10:47am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/27/12 5:30pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/27/12 11:58am
Label Number: 7012 1640 0000 7272 2100
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/21/12 12:43pm
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 10/21/12 11:42am
Depart USPS Sort WASHINGTON DC 20066 10/18/12
Facility
Processed at USPS WASHINGTON DC 20066 10/17/12 7:21pm
Origin Sort Facility
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 10/15/12 5:38pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 10/15/12 1:44pm
[73] Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4421 3654
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 11/15/12 11:19am
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 11/15/12 11:15am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 4:39pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 9:38am
[74] Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4421 4590
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 12/05/12 11:01am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 12/05/12 10:55am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 12/05/12 10:31am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/30/12 5:30pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/30/12 12:43pm
[75] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[76] See the enclosed updated escalating damages and injunctive relief. dated Monday December 17, 2012 03:04:46.82 PM
[79] With contrivance or deliberation; designedly; on purpose. Seel Kent,Comm. 318; Martin v. Hunter, 1 r Wheat. 334, 4 L. Ed. 97. (Black's Law Dictionary)
[81] 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.
[82] 7th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."
[83] In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability.
[84] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[85] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[86] 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.
[87] "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!!!!!
[88] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[89] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[90] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[91] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803)) Sovereign immunity does not exist for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law of the land
[92] "It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 162 (1914)
[93] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[94] 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.
[95] With contrivance or deliberation; designedly; on purpose. Seel Kent,Comm. 318; Martin v. Hunter, 1 r Wheat. 334, 4 L. Ed. 97. (Black's Law Dictionary)
[97] See the facts of the case as originally submitted in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435. I was deprived of the exculpable evidence of probable cause on a warrant that deprived me unconstitutionally of my Paternity, property and liberty.
[98] 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
[99] 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.
[100] It is for the public good that there be an end of litigation.
[101] No-one shall be tried or punished twice in regards to the same event, "double jeopardy."
[102] The combination of the TWO issues into one created the DEVASTATION in my life. The successful parties to the suit include the Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones, Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps in 03FC-010670 and Judge Bennett's conspiracy, Judge Colyer, The Prosecutors (denial of exculpable evidence) and Police Officers (false testimony) in CR203-1336M.
[103] Probable cause is the most essential of all exculpable evidence. How can you have a trial when there is no viable probable cause provided (Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243))?
[104] Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) where the prosecutors denied pretrial motions for exculpable evidence (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (1963), "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.")
[105] See item 12 on pages 17 and 18 of 27 on the signed notarized and dated petition Wednesday, September 26, 2012, as previously submitted on the same date.
--
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
