"Change We Can Believe In"
I stupidly had "HOPE"
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Thursday, February 02, 2012, 11:28:54 AM
I recently filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court (#11-8211), I had "HOPE" for a "Change We Can Believe In." In that I thought my president, the first non-white minority president, would seize the opportunity to assert governmental responsibility for Justice, both law and equity,[4] as regards minority civil rights for We the People.
We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to establish Justice… and secure[5] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Yet We the People do not have any enforceable civil rights in the United States of America today. We the People have been sophisticatedly lead to believe that Justice, both law and equity, was too expensive to be sustained. The Jim Crow era, Jane Crow era and the fear mongering plea bargaining era that currently imprisons FIVE times as many people in America than in any other developed country ("With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[6]) has been the TOOOOOO expensive moral and fiscal result.
Our civil rights are at the discretion of the modern Nobility,[7] the absolute immune "malicious or corrupt" judge,[8] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,[9] the "knowingly false testimony by police officer"[10] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[11]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [12] acting under color of law. And unless you have and are willing to invest large sums of money… larger than I[13] had, which most of us do not have, there is nothing you can do about it.
We the People believed we threw off the prerogative of the King in favor of the Rule of Law. But in the place of the Rule of Law our Judiciary has sanctioned the "malicious or corrupt" judge,[14] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,[15] the "knowingly false testimony by police officer"[16] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[17]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [18] acting under color of law throughout our Justice system.
My petition asked the simple question, "Where does a person go for the protection of the law, civil rights, when all persons have been granted civil and criminal absolute immunity for the deprivation of civil rights i.e., the "the protection of the law"?
Rather than seizing the opportunity to for the first time assert governmental security / liability for "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[19] my President, Mr. Obama, filed a waver and refused to even respond on the petition.
Now before you even consider the possibility, I want to clear up the issue of competency, yes I am pro se, yes there may indeed be the potential for harmless error in my petition. I sited 28 USC § 2111 - Harmless error, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." But the question is simple and unequivocal for any person of "ordinary intelligence."[20]
The Supreme Court likes to assert ""difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior."[21]
We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to "secure (respondeat superior liability) the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Our government of the people, by the people and for the people has as its unequivocal raisons d'etre SECURITY FOR OUR RIGHTS… with a constitution, courts, a government… for Civilization[22] to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
It is obvious to any unbiased observer that in the Jim Crow era African American men were lynched, African American woman were widowed and raped and African American children were murder and orphaned without the protection of the law, by white American men, while the absolutely immune justice system looked the other way.
In the Jane Crow era it is happening again. "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."[23] American Males are being financially destroyed; children are being orphaned, kidnapped from their fathers, without the protection of the Law,[24] by American women and their allies within the Jane Crow era, while the absolutely immune justice system looks the other way.
This is obvious to any person of "ordinary intelligence."[25] But yet to our Judiciary and the First minority president, it does not meet the ""difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault" required to make the government of the people, by the people and for the people responsible for Justice and securing to the victims, American Males, the "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
I feel like a broken record but WHY did We the People even write a Constitution to establish Justice if it was our intent to give those responsible for securing and enforcement of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[26] absolute immunity for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America???????"[27]
It is INSANITY of the HIGHEST ORDER!
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men," Edward R. Murrow. We the People have FORGOTTEN THE "Love of Virtue"[28] that this country was founded on.
We the People have fallen under the despotic[29] spell of the concentrated power[30] in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[31] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [32] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[33] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[34]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [35] acting under color of law.
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama
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,[36] 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[37] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[38] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[39] "before out of Court"[40] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[41]
"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. [42] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[43].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[44]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[45] 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,[46]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[47] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[48] 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"[49]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[50] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[51] "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 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."
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),[52] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [53] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[54] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[55] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[56] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday, February 02, 2012, 11:28:54 AM, 2012 01-26-12 Change we can believe in I had HOPE REV 02
[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 - 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] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR 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.
[5] "It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone and as quoted into Supreme Court stare decisis by Chief Justice John Marshal in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163
[6] "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
[7] 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."
[8] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[9] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[10] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[11] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[12] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[13] I spent every penny, cashed in my retirement in an 8.70 years struggle (3,175 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 4.22 years (1,541 days) in my struggle to regain my rights!
[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 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.
[15] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[16] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[17] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[18] 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] 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 cause) 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)
[21] CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010, page 18
[22] "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. 137 (1803)(Page 5 U. S. 163)
[23] "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[24] AMENDMENT XIV to the Constitution for the United States of America 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."
[25] 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 cause) 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)
[28] The love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. The Spirit of the Laws (French: De l'esprit des lois, also sometimes called The Spirit of Laws) is a treatise on political theory first published anonymously by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in 1748
[29] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[30] "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
[31] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[32] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[33] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[34] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[35] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[36] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR 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.
[37] 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.
[38] "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
[39] 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."
[43] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[45] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[46] 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
[47] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[48] 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.
[49] "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
[51] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
[55] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[56] "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
