Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.
Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by infamous accusation without access to 5th and 14th Amendment’s access to Justice with the equal protection of Due Process of Law.
The 50th anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee's, "To Kill a Mockingbird"[1] was Sunday July 11, 2010. I have to ask, have we lived up to its meaning, to its hope? We made it unfashionable to be a racist. We eliminated most of the Jim Crow discrimination, yes. But have we gone far enough?
--
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
Feb 21 2012 Petition
DENIED.
To Kill a Mocking Bird,
The Denial of Due Process
Revised Friday, February 17, 2012, Originally Posted Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by infamous accusation without access to 5th and 14th Amendment’s access to Justice with the equal protection of Due Process of Law.
The 50th anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee's, "To Kill a Mockingbird"[1] was Sunday July 11, 2010. I have to ask, have we lived up to its meaning, to its hope? We made it unfashionable to be a racist. We eliminated most of the Jim Crow discrimination, yes. But have we gone far enough?
Would there have been or is there today a crime in the corrupt and malicious arrest, persecution, trial and conviction of the fictional character Tom Robinson? Tom Robinson was a black crippled man with the audacity to feel sorry for a white woman. What did he do wrong?
Sheriff Tate, did not want to see Tom Robinson convicted, but he had to arrest him, RIGHT? The Prosecutor, Mr. Gilmer just wanted to win his case. He was just prosecuting the evidence, RIGHT? Judge Taylor asked Atticus to represent and defend Tom Robinson; he was trying to provide a fair process, RIGHT?
WRONG!!!
The arrest, the persecution, the trial and the conviction of the fictional character Tom Robinson would have been an unconstitutional and CRIMINAL denial of Due Process of Law[2], not that anyone would be prosecuted either then or now. Our Public Minister's,[3] the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, and the Executive Department have awarded themselves "absolute immunity."
Admittedly racism has become untenable in today's America. But racism is only one of the symptoms of the malice, the corruption and the incompetence[4] that would have convicted the fictional character Tom Robinson. Atticus issues a challenge of a sort to Scout, his daughter, and Jem, his son. I quote:
"I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do." ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11, spoken by the character Atticus
Do we have the courage[5] to take on the malice, corruption and incompetence that still infect our Justice system today?
The Sheriff, The Prosecutor, The Judge, The Executive Department, and The Justice Department all know better, I paraphrase slightly but I quote:
They are "representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, they are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. They may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the state, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none"[6] (bolding and underlining added for clarity).
The fictional character Tom Robinson was denied fair Due Process of Law[7]. They got away with it in the past and continue to get away with it in the present and will in the future because the police, the prosecutors and the Judges have immunity they have no responsibility for their official actions.
None of us has the protection of the law as envisioned by our founding fathers.[8] We are at the discretion of the police, the prosecutors and the Judges. We have relinquished our inalienable rights in favor of the police's, the prosecutors' and especially the Judges' impunity.
The Police don't have to investigate the crimes[9] they arrest people for. The Police don't even need to know the technical aspects of the crimes. They can just point a finger and lie[10] on the witness stand[11] to convict their innocent victims. They have immunity.
The Prosecutors have no professional responsibility to verify the evidence they present. They have no professional responsibility to provide exculpable evidence[12] that might prove the innocence of their victims. They have immunity.
You would think that Judges as the presiding authority would have some responsibility? Judges have absolutely no responsibility for the credibility of "Due Process" of law. A Judge can knowingly sign a malicious, corrupt or incompetent warrant[13] and he or she is absolutely immune. The 4th Amendment's protection:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
is unenforceable and completely at any Judges' discretion. Once a Judge signs it or lets an issue go to a jury it is all covered by HIS trickle down absolute immunity.[14] No one can be held accountable. A Judge can let it all go to hell in a hand basket and a Judge and EVERYONE under their authority has impunity. They have ABSOLUTE impunity[15].
The victims of the malice, corruption and / or incompetence, at their own expense, are forced against long odds to pursue vindication in an appeal process that is just as UNJUST and corrupt. An appeal process that is both more expensive and more time consuming for the slim possibility for a dubious vindication in a name clearing hearing, there is no redress for cost or damages.
So where do we go for Justice? There is no justice in Our Justice system. The Supreme Court has affirmed it:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) @ page 349), (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ page 554) and (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[16] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [17] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[18] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[19]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [20] acting under color of law to the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[21] of WE THE PEOPLE. We the People have no redress of grievances[22] as if they were NOBILITY.[23]
"To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without (JUSTICE… justice without equity considerations impoverishes its victims in pursuit of Justice) civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."[24] "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."[25] YA THINK? In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [26]
"This provision of the law is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (We the People being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose (RIGHTS are being deprived) interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions (without regard to any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[27]) with independence, and without fear of consequences." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 350 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
and
"In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (malicious and corrupt) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime." (line-through editing, non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity) (United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219) (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ 403 US 394-395)
Our police, prosecutors and judges are just doing their jobs, RIGHT? The police, the prosecutors and the judges have no regret or culpability, RIGHT? Their job has nothing to do with Justice, their job is to arrest, persecute and adjudge so as to instill fear of the Law, RIGHT? Fear is more important than Justice, RIGHT? We must all live in FEAR of the potential arrest, prosecution and conviction, without regard to our rights, the protection of the law or the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process, RIGHT? Abject assiduous fear is a requirement for a civilized society, RIGHT?
WRONG!!!
The police, the prosecutors, the judges and the entire Executive and Justice Departments of the United States of America's JOB is not to intimidate nor threaten, nor instill fear. Their job is Justice!!! It is best expressed best by the protection of 4TH Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects… shall not be violated."
It is the job of the Justice and Executive Departments to see that neither those acting under color of law nor those acting outside the law violate this security.
Constitutionally "We the People" have RIGHTS!!! Ninety-five percent (95%) of the people[28] have done nothing wrong and NEVER will. We need to base our Government policies on the Majority, not the MINORITY!
"Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy . . . but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
Too many mockingbirds have been destroyed at the hands of our self-admitted malicious, corrupt and incompetent Justice Department.
Justice is the inalienable FOUNDATION of LIBERTY
We HAVE RIGHTS in this country!!! "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."[29] The establishment of Justice under the Constitution and Laws of "We the People" is the responsibility of our employees, the police, the prosecutors, the Judges and our President[30]. We need to hold them liable per the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress[31] of grievances[32].
"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," THE PROTECTION OF LAWS. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163.
Not currently in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have NO freedom; we have NO courage. But yet, I am an idiot. I no longer have the audacity of hope, but I still have HOPE.
David G. Jeep
cc: President Barack Hussein Obama
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General of the United States
Solicitor General of the United States
e-mailed to a select group of favorites
file Originally Posted Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
"All the parties" who participate in the unjust conviction of a Negro would be liable, including "the grand jury, the petit jury, the judge, and the officer of the law" who executes the judgment." Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 598 (1866) Sen. Davis of Kentucky speaking to the scope and in opposition to Section 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act now codified into statute law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
From: David G. Jeep
To: Barack Obama ; Barack Obama ; Claire Mccaskill ; David Plouffe ; "David Jeep Dave@dgjeep" ; Eric H. Holder Jr. ; Joe Biden ; Joe Biden ; Kit Bond ; Office of the Solicitor General ; President Barack Hussein Obama ; Raymond M. Meyer ; "Robert O'Connor" ; 48 Hours <48hours@cbsnews.com>; Alan Dershowitz ; Amnesty International USA Midwest Office ; Amnesty International USA ; Anthony D. Romero ACLU ; Ari B. Bloomekatz ; Bill McClellan ; Bob Woodward ; Camilla Cavendish ; Caroline Fredrickson ACLU ; Carolyn Tuft ; CBS Evening News ; Chicago Tribune ; Chris Fusco ; CHRISTINE CHRISTINE BYERS ; Christopher Beam ; Daniel Politi Politi ; David Savage ; David G. Jeep ; Editor TomPaine.com ; editor@californiachronicle.com; Eidtor American Chronical ; Federal City ; FeedBack Human Rights First ; Genral Manager ; Irene Haskins ; J Mannies ; James Janega ; Jason Rosenbaum ; Jeff Coen ; Jeremy Kohler ; Joe Mahr ; John Kass ; KansasCityStar ; KMOV-TV ; "Ktvinews@Foxtv. Com" ; Lake Sun Leader DAILY ; Laura Meckler ; Letters to the Editor The New York Times ; Letters to the Editor ; Letters to the Editor ; Los Angeles Times ; Mary DeLach-Leonard ; McClatchy Newspapers News TIP ; Mike Wallace <60m@cbsnews.com>; Mike Christian at 314-280-5222 FBI Report ; MSNBC on the Internet ; My Turn Editor Newsweek ; News Tip BBC ; News Tip CNN ; News Tribune Jefferson City ; Newsweek ; "Patrick M. O'Connell" ; Peace Economy News ; Pete Bland ; PressRelease politico.com ; Robert Patrick ; Sky News ; Slate Magazine ; Southeast Missourian ; St. Louis Business Journal ; St. Louis Justice and Shares ; Staff Caught.net ; STEPHEN STEPHEN DEERE ; Steve Chapman ; Sunday Morning CBS ; Tami Abdollah ; The Editors ; The Joplin Globe Publishing Company ; TheSpringfieldNews-Leader
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
Subject: To Kill a Mocking Bird,
[1] I use "To Kill a Mocking Bird" as an illustration because the facts of the case are so well known, but the malice, corruption and incompetence is HAPPENING everyday all over AMERICA
[3] 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.
[4] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[5] Edward R. Murrow said in regard to McCarthyism's fear mongering "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."
[7] The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV No State shall make or enforce any law which shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law & Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 241 Conspiracy against rights & 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
[8] Edward R. Murrow said in regard to McCarthyism's fear mongering "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."
[9] Just imagine if Sheriff Tate had investigated brought fourth the evidence that Tom Robinson's left hand was crippled, that the defendant had clearly been beaten by a left handed person? A good investigator should have discovered these VERY pertinent FACTS.
[10] "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) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[13] "Jim Crow" may be unfashionable, but "Jane Crow" discrimination, the preference for a woman's maternal rights over a man's paternal rights in Family Law reigns supreme. See also Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court
[14] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[15] See Cases 08-1823 and 07-2614 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[16] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[17] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[19] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[20] 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] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[23] 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."
[24] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[25] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[26] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[29] Paraphrased from the Preamble to the United States Constitution by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84
[30] United States of America Constitution Article 2. § 3 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
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
