Saturday, March 3, 2012

Judges are not allowed to indulge “cases of imaginary evils”[1] vexatious[2] and calumnious[3] actions



Judges are not allowed to indulge
"cases of imaginary evils"[1] vexatious[2] and calumnious[3] actions
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
 "A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[4] is ever truly safe."[5]
Saturday, March 03, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[6]
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

Judges are not allowed to indulge "cases of imaginary evils"[7] vexatious[8] and calumnious[9] actions.  A constitutionally commissioned judge's first and most important task is to be a judge and judicially avoid "imaginary evils,"[10] vexatious[11] and calumnious[12] actions for We the People openly and publicly, if not before out of court,[13] then most definitely and necessarily in court.  NO MATTER what the Supreme Court says no one has immunity from the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.[14]  Credible probable cause[15] is an ESSENTIAL prerequisite to any GOVERNMENT action "imaginary evils,"[16] vexatious[17] and calumnious[18] actions do not qualify.  Constitutionally commissioned judges, prosecutors and police are not allowed to persecute "cases of imaginary evils"[19] vexatious[20] and calumnious[21] actions (Messerschmidt v. Millender (No. 10–704, Decided February 22, 2012), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011) and Jeep v. Obama (No. 11-8211 Petition DENIED February 21, 2012)).  ""Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "it's just words on paper, what our framers would have called a 'parchment guarantee'""[22] unless and until We the People of "ordinary intelligence"[23] demand our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[24] with our constitutionally assured by the 1st and 7th Amendment remedies[25] provided for by the Constitution for the United States of America, We the People will FOREVER be subject to "cases of imaginary evils"[26] vexatious[27] and calumnious[28] actions.
      We the People have RIGHTS in this country.  Our constitutionally commissioned representatives, judges, prosecutors and police, are restricted to the unbiased definitively established FACTS as to probable cause and guilt!!!!!  For any society to successfully function there has to be mutual TRUST.  Now in homogenous societies, it is easier, there is less crime.  In America we have never had that luxury.  In America, in too many cases we have not learned the MOST fundamental requirement of any civilization, TRUST.  We are all too willing to give into "cases of imaginary evils,"[29] vexatious[30] and calumnious[31] actions, the product of a fruitful imagination.  Imaginary evils soon become a real one by indulging our reflections on them.  Our constitutionally commissioned judiciary has capitulated to the FEAR MONGERS and forgotten its PURPOSE is to be JUDICIAL, without the fear or the emotional bias of "imaginary evils,"[32] vexatious[33] and calumnious[34] actions the product of fruitful imagination.
Evidence as posted on this blog
Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Saturday, March 03, 2012, 11:13:44 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228



[2] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[4] "And if you think that is a national problem, indulge 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.
[5] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[6] 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
[8] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[11] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[13] "but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do;"  Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607)
[14] The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph:
"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"
[15] Amendment 4 "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."
[17] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[20] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[22] "'We the People' Loses Appeal With People Around the World" NYTimes By ADAM LIPTAK Published: February 6, 2012
[23] 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)
[24] 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. 
[25] The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance (justifiable injury) 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.
[27] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[30] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[33] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349



--
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
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 2, 2012

Judges are not allowed to indulge “cases of imaginary evils”

Judges are not allowed to indulge
"cases of imaginary evils"[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
a country in which nobody[2] is ever truly safe."[3]
Friday, March 02, 2012, 11:15:57 AM
"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[4]
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

     A constitutionally commissioned judge's first and most important task is to avoid "imaginary evils,"[5] vexatious[6] and calumnious[7] actions for We the People openly and publically, if not before out of court,[8] then most definitely and necessarily in court.  NO MATTER what the Supreme Court says no one has immunity from the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.[9]  Credible probable cause[10] is a prerequisite to any GOVERNMENT action "imaginary evils,"[11] vexatious[12] and calumnious[13] actions do not qualify.   Constitutionally commissioned judges, prosecutors and police are not allowed to persecute "cases of imaginary evils"[14] vexatious[15] and calumnious[16] actions (Messerschmidt v. Millender (No. 10–704, Decided February 22, 2012), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011) and Jeep v. Obama (No. 11-8211 Petition DENIED February 21, 2012)).  ""Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "it's just words on paper, what our framers would have called a 'parchment guarantee'""[17] unless and until We the People of "ordinary intelligence"[18] demand our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[19] with our constitutionally assured by the 1st and 7th Amendment remedies[20] provided for by the Constitution for the United States of America.
     We the People have RIGHTS in this country.  Our constitutionally commissioned representatives, judges, prosecutors and police, are restricted to the unbiased definitively established FACTS as to probable cause and guilt!!!!!  For any society to successfully function there has to be mutual TRUST.  Now in homogenous societies, it is easier, there is less crime.  In America we have never had that luxury.  In America, in too many cases we have not learned the MOST fundamental requirement of any civilization, TRUST.  We are all too willing to give into "cases of imaginary evils"[21] the product of a fruitful imagination.  Imaginary evils soon become a real one by indulging our reflections on them.  Our constitutionally commissioned judiciary has capitulated to the FEAR MONGERS and forgotten its PURPOSE is to be JUDICIAL, without the fear or the emotional pretense of "imaginary evils"[22] the product of fruitful imagination.
     We the People have to remember who we are… "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."[23]
     If we allow our constitutionally commissioned Judiciary to indulge "imaginary evils,"[24] with absolute immunity[25] attached, the product of their fruitful imagination alone, we will never enjoy the security sought by the founding fathers.  We have to learn to TRUST.  Races have to learn how to trust other races, the Jim Crow era.[26]  Men can and SHOULD be trusted around woman and children, even in the Jane Crow era.[27]  The assertion that domestic violence perpetrated by men against women as inevitable is an "imaginary evil"[28] purported by those that have MUCH to gain[29] by the realization of the "imaginary evil."[30]
     The constitutionally commissioned judges, prosecutor and police are "representative 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, he is 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. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his 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."[31]
     When we allow our constitutionally commissioned Judges empowered by absolute impunity  as in Messerschmidt v. Millender (No. 10–704, Decided February 22, 2012), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011) and Jeep v. Obama (No. 11-8211 Petition DENIED February 21, 2012) to reach beyond reason into fantasy we are abdicating our rights and a redress of grievances.[32]
     How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[33] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[34] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[35]
     We the People have fallen under the despotic[36] spell of the concentrated power[37] in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[38] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [39] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[40] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[41]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [42] 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,[43] 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[44] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[45] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[46] "before out of Court"[47] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[48]
     "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. [49]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[50]. 

Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[51]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[52] 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,[53]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[54] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[55] 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"[56]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[57] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[58] "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),[59] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [60] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[61] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[62]   The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[63] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidence as posted on this blog
Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, March 02, 2012, 11:15:57 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228


[2] "And if you think that is a national problem, indulge 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
[6] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[8] "but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do;"  Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607)
[9] The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph:
"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"
[10] Amendment 4 "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."
[12] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[15] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[17] "'We the People' Loses Appeal With People Around the World" NYTimes By ADAM LIPTAK Published: February 6, 2012
[18] 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)
[19] 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. 
[20] The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance (justifiable injury) 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.
[23] Edward Roscoe Murrow (April 25, 1908 – April 27, 1965) was an American broadcast journalist.
[25] "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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[26] The Jim Crow laws were racially discriminatory state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965.
[27] The "Jane Crow" Era (1974-present), "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."

A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  "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.  The Jane Crow era was instigated to protect children and woman with the Rule of Law in 1974.  The over-funded government witch-hunt for villains has, in effect, done just the opposite.  The Jane Crow laws are sexually discriminatory enforcement of state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1974 and present.
[29] The "Jane Crow" Era, "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."
[31] Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
[32] 1st Amendment -"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[33] "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. 335 (1983) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity).  Justice without equity consideration impoverishes the victims at the hands of the injustice.
[34] 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"
[35] 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. 
[36] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[37] "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
[38] 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.
[39] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[40] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[41] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[42] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] "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
[46] 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."
[50] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[52] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[53] 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
[54] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[55] 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.
[56] "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
[58] 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.
[62] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[63] "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
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)