"The Earth and everything that's in it": January 8, 2012

Friday, January 13, 2012

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases.” [1]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases." [1]

A Docketed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court

of the United States, Jeep v. Obama et al, #11-8211

Dear People,

As you may or may not remember I contacted you as referenced above via a letter dated Tuesday, December 27, 2011. I asked "Do you have the guts to admit yours and other's mistakes[2] and work for justice, law and equity,[3] unlike your victim[4] Donna R. Andrieu,[5] an assistant district attorney in New Orleans?" The Supreme Court has now ordered "The judgment of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court of Louisiana is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion"[6] i.e., granted a new trial, but that does not even come close to justice, law and equity.[7] The naive idea that you can have sustain justice without equity consideration necessitates the uberempathetic[8] representation of DNA Evidence, Death Row Inmates and Guantanamo Bay atrocities every where. It just AIN'T HAPPEN… never will.

My petition has now been docketed as of Tuesday January 10, 2012 (Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States 11-8211) and is out for responses due by Thursday, February 09, 2012. I again ask for your help, possibly with an editorial response…

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."[9]

This is not about just me, this is about Equal Justice for ALL.[10] "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. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction[11] can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful." [12] We the People sought as the primary goals of our Constitution to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

This issue does not require a constitutional amendment, any new legislation,[13] nor does it require negation of any common law.[14] "We the People" need only demand the protection of the laws; the raisons d'etre of all civilization since the dawn of man.

Governmental accountability has been the goal of every attempt at government since at least the Magna Carta[15] (1215), if not before. For it is and has always been "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."[16] "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." [17]" The King's prerogative as asserted without limitation, Absolute Immunity, is what instigated[18] our own Revolutionary War.

Absolute Immunity as currently sustained by our Supreme Court is an insanity of a much, much… much higher order. Not only are our leaders[19] exempt from any culpability for their actions, as was the problem in pre-Revolutionary Times but now "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[20]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [21] acting under color of law NOW have immunity.

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice[22]"

I ask in my petition for a writ of certiorari the simple question:

Where does a person[23] go who has been damaged, if not destroyed,[24] by the denial of rights in a largely civil action[25] for a 7^th Amendment remedy, a redress of grievances,[26] or the protection of the law, when the Executive's Justice Department will not enforce the law (Local, State and Federal) and the Court's Judiciary (Local, State, Federal and Supreme) have acted in an "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[27] of "deliberate indifference"[28] to ministerially[29] award themselves "Absolute Immunity"[30] "before out of Court"[31] to COVER-UP[32] "false and malicious Persecutions"[33] to wit the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?[34]

Again I ask for your HELP? The raisons d'etre for a government of the people, by the people and FOR the people is accountability to We the People.

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

cc: My Blog (http://www.dgjeep.blogspot.com/) - Friday, January 13, 2012, 1:03:24 PM

David G. Jeep

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

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) or http://www.dgjeep.blogspot.com/

(314) 514-5228

[1] Justice Louis D. Brandeis "Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It" (1914).

[2] 100 years of Jim Crow's lynchings, discrimination, INEQUALITY, corruption, malice and incompetence can be directly attributed to the absolute immunity granted by OUR Supreme Court and tolerated by OUR free press EVERYDAY with Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley . Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871). Lets not install another 100 years of inequality with Jane Crow's (the preference for female rights over male rights in family disputes) version of lynching (the ex parte order of protection), discrimination, INEQUALITY, corruption, malice and incompetence

[3] Any assertion of Justice that does not include both LAW AND EQUITY impoverishes its victim in pursuit of Justice.

[4] Your victims have been benumbed to Justice in both law and equity by your assertion that they like the "KING CAN DO NO WRONG." It is important to STRESS LAW and EQUITY.

[5] "Justices Rebuke a New Orleans Prosecutor" New York Times, November 8, 2011, By ADAM LIPTAK

[6] (Slip Opinion) SMITH v. CAIN, WARDEN, CERTIORARI TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF LOUISIANA, ORLEANS PARISH No. 10–8145. Argued November 8, 2011—Decided January 10, 2012

[7] Any assertion of Justice that does not include both LAW AND EQUITY impoverishes its victim in pursuit of Justice.

[8] 2007, "Equality in the War on Terror" by Neal K. Katyal 59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365-1394 (2007)

[9] Justice Louis D. Brandeis "Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It" (1914).

[10] AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868 "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[11] See the Jim Crow Era, the Jane Crow Era (where a woman's rights in domestic disputes are unequally empowered over a man's) or the criminally zealous persecution of the law (the Orleans Parish Prosecutors, City of Osage Beach Police (USCA 08-1823), Camdenton County Prosecutors (USCA 08-1823) and others) with out regard to truth, rights or justice.

[12] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788. James Madison

[13] Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation

[14] 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 (eliminate the skewedness) reading, overlooking the noted exception, but if he hath conspired before out of Court, that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber. Lord Coke three years later in The Case of Proclamations (1610) EWHC KB J22, declared the King to be subject to the law, and the laws of Parliament to be void if in violation of "common right and reason".

Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) ibid.

[15] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at making government accountable, established the FIRST right of redress: "If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon."

[16] Chief Justice John Marshal Quoting Blackstone's "Common Law" into Supreme Court stare decisis binding to all that follow. 5 U.S. 163

[17] Chief Justice John Marshal Quoting Blackstone's "Common Law" into Supreme Court stare decisis binding to all that follow. 5 U.S. 163

[18] "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

[19] "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 (or a thief) 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 i.e., "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor and #1 New York Times bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.

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

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

[22] Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law)

[23] It should be noted that the petitioner is pro se and does not have the uberempathetic representation of a pro bono high priced law firm that is afforded a death row inmate (i.e., , Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145) much like most of the Supreme Court's victims in this government of the people, by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE. The only hope he has if the 1^st and 7^th remedy

[24] I have spent every penny I have in 8.51 years struggle (3,107 days). I was incarcerated for 411 days, and then denied my day in court, on a false charge ("We live in a Lawless Society" via Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT). I have been indigent and living on the street for 4.04 years (1,474 days) in my struggle to regain my rights!

[25] While injunctive relief is a component of my petition monetary damages are the essential component of the remedy.

[26] 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[27] Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607), ibid.

[28] Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown et al. (1997) page 398

[29] 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.

[30] "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

[31] Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607), ibid.

[32] 100 years of Jim Crow Laws denial of basic human rights can be directly linked to this cover-up… IMMUNITY

[33] Lord Coke, , Floyd and Barker (1607), ibid.

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

Evidence as posted on this blog

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

The Tax System Perfected 2012

The Tax System Perfected

"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is

a country in which nobody[1] is ever truly safe."[2]

Thursday, January 12, 2012, 3:25:32 PM

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

Justice as regards taxation has always been an issue and although I assert to have perfected it here, I admit that while my current assertion is, a perfected tax system, time will undoubtedly prove that any system of men can and will be corrupted as an unavoidable result of its own humanity.

The current view in the west is that Communism was defeated by Capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would agree that a pluralist democracy defeated the ideological tyranny of 20^th century communist but that is as far as I can go. In the west we see the battle over Communism as having occurred in the 20^th Century and that is FALSE. The battle between communism and capitalism took place in the 19^th Century without a shot being fired and the outcome had already been decided long before Lenin or Mao even came on to the scene.

In 1848 when Marx first published his "Manifesto of the Communist Party," he described the current state of affairs accurately, in the first half of the 19^th Century, when he asserted in his opening statement:

"A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. (THIS WAS IN 1848)

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages."

1848 was the beginning of the end of unrestrained economic dictatorships of pure laissez-faire capitalism.[4] Progressives that were socially aware of the despotic tendencies of unrestrained capitalism were coming to power and defeating laissez-faire capitalism. Because of the absolutism that Communism asserts, the movement in America became better known as the Progressive Era (1890-1920). The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and political reform with Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points January 8, 1918. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history, economics, and political science.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (23 February 1744 – 19 September 1812), the founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty, said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" and he gave his opposition the only weapon they would need. Of course the Rothschilds were avariciously driven, but he had expressed the means for the downfall of the economic dictatorships of pure laissez-faire capitalism.

The Progessives Democratically sanctioned socially directed monetary policy defeated the unrestrained economic dictatorships of pure laissez-faire capitalism without a shot fired.

The Rich say they pay their fair share. The Poor say they are being denied their fair share by the accumulation of wealth by the Rich. Karl Marx competently expressed the issue in February 1848 [5] when he published the "Manifesto of the Communist Party," I quote:

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

The over zealous implementation of the Manifesto of the Communist Party lead to violent overthrow of governments and the Cold War. Karl Marx never proposed violent over throw. During the Cold War the Communist Party used its unwarranted totalitarian control to stifle its People into submission to their overly zealous humanly imperfect understanding of Karl Marx's overly simplified 37 page opinion, The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Karl Marx never advocated the use of democratically authorized socially directed monetary policy either. The revolution was now capitalism it was not communistic it was driven by the inherent justice of democratically supported socially directed monetary policy.

While this was going on in the later part of the 19^th Century and the first half of the 20^th century in Europe, Asia and the Eastern Block, We the People in the New World and the west were taking a different tack. We the People were recovering from our Civil War 1861-1865 and attempting to eliminate the vestiges of slavery. Rather than an oppressively focused totalitarian approach to the public welfare, We the People were financing the end of Slavery in our Civil War with socially directed monetary policy. Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War by printing Money, the Greenbacks,[6] to finance the end of slavery in our Civil War (1861-1865) i.e., socially directed monetary policy.

Unlike the violent over throw of monarchs and unrestrained economic dictatorships of pure laissez-faire capitalism used by Lenin (1917) and Mao Zedong (1949), in the west, we used democratically established socially directed monetary policy to settle the disputes between the classes. Again, Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War by printing Money, the Greenbacks. FDR printed money to finance his New Deal and defeat Hitler in World War II.

Monetary Policy is the means by which we can justifiably improve if not perfect our Tax System.

The current view of the "Rich" is that they pay more than their fair share because per capita they pay more. And the view of the poor, the non rich, is that their wealth is less than the total per capita wealth should be as unevenly divided. The Problem in this view of taxation is in its reliance on the definition of per capita.[7] Per the current interpretation of per capita both arguments are correct and yet inconsistent at the same time, thus leaving We the People with an unworkable solution.

What I propose is a redefinition of the term per capita. For this example I am going to use the much used analogy of Warren Buffett and his secretary. Warren Buffett has in effect proposed a redefinition although not expressly and without anything but altruistic support. What Warren Buffett does, in his all too altruistic assertion, is take it on the chin for all those in his tax bracket that have the same issue. And that logically is UNFAIR to wit, UN Just. Warren Buffett and his Secretary while being equal as asserted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, in economic terms they are not and NEVER will be equal economically. Economically speaking Buffett is, I would assert, millions of times larger than his secretary.

In the bible, King James Version, Matthew 22:21, it says "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Today we live in a world that is much larger than the limits of our neighborhoods although most of us never need nor venture outside of our neighborhoods. This much larger world is what supports and maintains Warren Buffett's vast wealth. His secretary, beyond her immediate dependence on Mr. Buffett for her support, cares not about this larger world economically.

Mr. Buffett's secretary could survive without this much larger world, Caesar's world if you will. Mr. Buffett, with his vast wealth attached, could not. If we lived in the horse and buggy era, while Mr. Buffett may still have been successful, most of his Billionaire contemporaries would not have had their opportunities to succeed. In a smaller world overall wealth is commensurately reduced. Mr. Buffett and his wealthy contemporaries need a $14,000,000,000,000 ($14 trillion dollar) economy to sustain their wealth. Mr. Buffett's secretary could survive without a $14,000,000,000,000 ($14 trillion dollar) economy, apart from her immediate dependence on Mr. Buffett,

Karl Marx in his manifesto made predictions; he predicted that family and religion would both be less prominent in the future. And for economic reasons that has indeed been the case. In the early half of the 19^th Century your family and your religion largely defined your economic possibilities. You were locked into carrying on the religiously sanctioned family business much more so then than now. Your business practices were defined by your religion, usury was a sin in the Christian Religion and not so much in the Jewish Religion. The Rothschilds, a Jewish Family, became the preeminent bankers.

The origin of this inequality goes back to the Gold Standard. With the Gold Standard the amount of tender never changes, but the DEMAND unavoidably increases not only with the population but with the innovation of New Things. An arbitrarily fixed monetary supply, DEVALUES people and increases the intrinsic value of money. Those that have money thus increase their wealth by mere ownership of it. The wealthy have always unequally enjoyed this intrinsic increase in money's value, via ownership alone, at the expense of the middle class and poor. Inflation is the one weapon We the People can use to combat this otherwise unavoidable devaluation of We the People.

There has to be a limit or the minority, the wealthy, increase their wealth geometrically while We the People, the have-nots, have to fight over their crumbs. This unfairness is what built the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal and the Palace at Versailles

In the west We the People have overcome this inherent inequity with Monetary policy. We print money to get the stagnate money out of the proverbial mattress in depressed times and we print money to redistribute wealth so as to inhibit the geometric generational accumulation of wealth.

The Perfect Tax system is, as most elegant solutions are simple. Eliminate taxes all together. Nobody pays any tax. We then fund our Government solely by the use of socially directed monetary policy, to wit printing money.

Every dollar in circulation is thus diminished equally and capital is dispersed and devalued democratically to achieve socially directed priorities of the democratic majority. It is elegantly simple. Warren buffet's wealth is diminished dollar for dollar. And his secretary's buying power while diminished is not prohibitively inflated. Per capita is redefined as how many dollars you have, not by the number of heads. The more money you have the more the inflation of printing money takes from you.

Inflation is good thing!

NO more TAX MAN, smile.

Inflation becomes a good thing that devalues the minority, the rich, instead of the majority, the poor.

Now can we do it tomorrow? No, we need to again find our confidence in each other. We need to reassure ourselves that an essentially stable currency is an inescapable necessity for ALL. We need to rediscover that we are all in this together. We need to eliminate all caste, and nobility. We need to eliminate in essence ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY!!! We have to FIRMLY establish that EVERYone is subject to the inflation tax.

ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice 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 in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!

The ministerial[8] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[9] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[10] "before out of Court"[11] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[12]

"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, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [13] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871 [14].

Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[15] for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice 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,[16]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment [17] 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!!!

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"[18]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[19] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[20] "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 8 years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8^th 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."

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

Thursday, January 12, 2012, 3:25:32 PM, 2011 11-10-11 Taxation PERFECTED REV 02

David G. Jeep

(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 (or a thief) 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 - 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] In economics, laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

[5] It will be important later to note that this was published before the Civil War 1861-1865

[6] A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S.

[7] Per capita is a Latin prepositional phrase: per (preposition, taking the accusative case, meaning "by, by means of") and capita (accusative plural of the noun caput, "head"). The phrase thus means "by heads" or "for each head", i.e. per individual or per person. The term is used in a wide variety of social sciences and statistical research contexts, including government statistics, economic indicators, and built environment studies.

[8] 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.

[9] "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

[10] 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."

[11] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[12] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

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

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

[15] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[16] 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

[17] 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.

[18] "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

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

[20] 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 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, and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina jury, the State of South Carolina, 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 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 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)

Evidence as posted on this blog